Agenda item

 

6.1  The chair welcomed Councillor Richard Livingstone (Cabinet Member for Housing), Gerri Scott (Strategic Director of Housing & Community Services), Paul Langford (Head of Operations) and Bernard Nawrat (Human Resources Director).

 

6.2  Councillor Livingstone stated this was a very distressing case where the council got things badly wrong. He explained that in the previous year, the council had conducted 227 evictions, which was a declining number from 4 years ago when the figure was 352. The number of evictions was coming down. It was important that every eviction is conducted professionally so the council does not end up in a situation such as this.

 

6.3  Councillor Livingstone set out some background information: Mr AA had been a council tenant since 1989. He was re-housed in 2001 to a new property. From the point where he moved his tenancy, his housing benefit covered most of his rent but he was responsible for a proportion. Immediately from 2001 he fell into arrears. Over time the arrears built up to £1,300 in 2006, at which point the council decided to take possession proceedings. By the time possession order was granted in November 2006 the debt had built up to £1,564.

 

6.5  An eviction has effectively two legal processes, getting the possession order and then moving to execute the possession. The council received the possession order in 2006. There were then several occasions before the incident  discussed  here when the council successfully applied to carry out the eviction and in each case Mr AA came to an agreement with the  council when he started repaying his debt and then for whatever reason those repayments stopped.  Finally in April 2013 it got to the point where he was evicted, and that eviction went very badly wrong. It led to the removal and disposal of his possessions due to officers not following council procedures around evictions properly.

 

  The cabinet member felt these were unique circumstances. He set out a   number of steps the council had taken both before and after the court case.

 

6.6  A review of procedures had resulted in 4 changes:

 

(1)  The procedures were rewritten for improved clarification of where responsibility lay for actions.

(2)  The housing service clarified what the procedure was in terms of storing goods following evictions.

(3)  a new procedural step was added so that when an income officer was expecting an eviction, they had to confirm with the resident services officer it was going to take place and ensure the resident services officer was going to be present.

(4)  The income officer was also required to inform the income team leader that the eviction was taking place and that the income officer was going to be on site.

 

6.7  Members were informed that immediately following these instances those four steps were taken to tighten up procedures although the existing procedure  should have led to the right outcome.

 

6.8  Councillor Livingstone stated that housing management had apologised face to face with Mr AA, compensation was agreed and there was an investigation started into the event was carried out by an independent officer. That investigation lead to the disciplinary proceedings against 6 staff, 3 of which were for gross misconduct.

 

6.9  Councillor Livingstone reported that all of this happened before the trial. There was then the court case where the first judge looked at the case and considered the case was about focusing on damages. It was passed to a second judge who broadened the scope. The case was settled out of court in the summer and the judgement was published in October 2014.

 

6.10  That judgement was based substantially on the council’s internal report. The judge found the internal report to be credible and robust investigation into the incidents that had taken place and primary basis for all the evidence to be used in reaching the judgement. Officers reviewed the internal report against the judgement to consider whether there needed to be any further disciplinary action.

 

6.11  The sub-committee were informed there was an interpretation in law which was important in this case. The council used a  6 year time limit based on a judgement which had been a case between Bristol Council and a tenant called Hassan. This case set out that the 6 years started from the point where the eviction was actionable which in this case was 2008. When this eviction took place in April 2013 the council’s view was that this was still within that timeframe.

 

6.12  The judge came to a different view which was the actual starting point for the clock to start ticking was November 2006 when the original possession orders were received. There had been a number of discussions whether the council should appeal that part of the judgement on this narrow point.  We were never going to appeal the issues about our fault in this incident. We settled out of court and agreed from the outset that the council was wrong but did need to look at this in terms of precedent it might set.

 

6.13  Members were informed that it was important that there was confidence that there were no similar issues with evictions. Officers had been asked to conduct a review of evictions over the last 2 years. This was a substantial number of cases so they would be looking at a sample, to review the circumstances and ensure that those evictions had been carried out properly. The review was likely to take 2 months or at least until the end of the year . The Cabinet Member for Housing undertook to report back to the sub-committee the outcome of the review.

 

6.14  Councillor Ben Johnson stated he was concerned by the tone of the report, that the council did not accept parts of the judge’s findings. He was concerned that it could suggest there was a culture in the housing department where this kind of behaviour is acceptable, and this in turn left him concerned about the officer review of evictions

 

6.15  Councillor Livingstone reported that the only grounds that officers were considering appeal was a specific issue in respect of the Bristol versus Hussan case. It raised a point in law that we thought needed some clarification. However ultimately the decision had been made to accept the ruling and no appeal had gone forward

 

6.16  The Strategic Director of Housing & Community Services responded to the councillor’s point regarding the culture in the housing department. She said that there are 1200 staff in the department and the vast majority of them come into work and do a good job, are compassionate and care about what they are doing and follow the rules. When this incident did come to light the right things happened in terms of the management investigation. It had been brought to her attention by the Head of Operations. The important thing to make sure that proper management processes were put in place and that was what happened in this case.

 

6.17  Councillor Livingstone said that it was very clear that the officers had acted inappropriately, did not follow procedure, there clearly was a conspiracy among some officers to cover things up and that was a matter of gross misconduct which cannot be tolerated..

 

6.18  Councillor Ben Johnson asked about the timeline - the internal HR process with officers versus the court proceedings. The internal process took place prior to the trial. Is it usual practice where a case goes to trial for the council to hold a disciplinary process and assess the officers before a trial, when there may be material/facts that arises from the trial and would be of interest to the panel?

 

6.19  Councillor Livingstone reported when the disciplinary cases were considered, members should remember this case appeared to be about what was the right level of compensation for Mr AA for the loss of his goods, and that was the expected focus of the trial.

 

6.20  The Human Resources Director reported that the cases where officers would delay disciplinary hearing was if there was a police investigation with potential criminal process where there was potential for new evidence to come to light. The reality in this situation was there was no new evidence - the evidence gathering had been completed and was ready to go to hearing.

 

6.21  Councillor Martin Seaton asked who makes that decision? Was it the legal department, the director or the head of Human Resources?

 

6.22  The Human Resources Director explained that the decision to move to disciplinary action sits with the chief officer - in this case the Strategic Director of Housing & Community Services.

 

6.23  Councillor Claire Maugham said she was glad to hear the recognition that something had gone very badly wrong in this case  – she was keen for the sub-committee to be satisfied that the review is fit for purpose.  She was concerned about what residents and other staff would think about the fact that these officers still work for the council. It could appear that we have tolerated.

 

6.24  The Human Resources Director said that it was unreasonable to suggest that we have tolerated it – a clear process was followed to the letter. There was an management investigation and independent disciplinary panels. Sometimes it would mean dismissal and sometimes not, other sanctions can be put on them, which happened in these cases.

 

6.25  There were four separate disciplinary panels coming up with decisions. It was not one panel hearing all four cases. That is the process, and we have to accept the process was correct, proper and fair.

 

6.26  Councillor Livingstone agreed that a clear process had been followed and reached its conclusions. Taking a decision outside that process would very quickly lead the council to the employment tribunal.

 

6.27  Councillor Claire Maugham stated that she would like an assurance on this as what we have seen here was a high court identifying gross misconduct, our independent review identifying gross misconduct, and a number of other officers aware of the situation, however when the case goes to internal disciplinary procedure it dissipates.

 

6.28  The Human Resources Director reported that it was not true that gross misconduct always lead to dismissal. The ACAS code of conduct which we have to follow is very clear that it is a choice. It is a judgement we rely on trained disciplinary panels to make, when they consider all the information. The disciplinary panels were trained to take on all the circumstances and evidence received, what the individual have to say about what happened and all relevant factors

 

6.29  Councillor Claire Maugham asked the Cabinet Member of Housing if he felt confident in the process?

 

6.30  Councillor Livingstone replied that he was confident in the process. The investigation process lead to 3 officers facing gross misconduct hearings. The charges went to the hearings, were found to be gross misconduct and sanctions were applied as a result of that process.

 

6.31  In terms of the investigation the judge said it had been a robust process. It clearly lead to disciplinary action taking place

 

6.32  Councillor Johnson Situ asked what kind of outcome can the review bring and what steps can we take to restore confidence in the system?

 

6.33  The Strategic Director of Housing and Community Services reported that the review would look at evictions for rent arrears, anti-social behaviour and illegal sub-letting since these are the three biggest categories. Officers wanted to look at some of the things that came up through the management investigation and high court judgement - it was about the grounds for eviction, the orders and the potential timing concerns. When does the clock start ticking and if officers were to apply the outcome of the judgement would that mean that some of those evictions that had been carried out would be wrong, the presence of the right officers and importantly were all the processes and procedures followed particularly around removal and storage of goods.

 

6.34  Members asked that an email is sent to all ward councillors asking for details of particular cases they would like to see investigated as part of the eviction review.

 

6.35  Councillor Ben Johnson asked for an update on the officers named in the judgement. The Human Resources Director responded that a decision was made to take them out of the front line. Officers were actively pursuing placements in alternative jobs. One of the officers was on serious long term sick leave and the other three should be placed shortly into jobs away from the front line.

 

6.36  Councillor Claire Maugham asked whether the review would apply a greater level of scrutiny to previous evictions handled by the officers named in this judgement . The Head of Operations reported that proportionality means that inevitably they will recur. Over 300 cases would be looked at.

 

6.37  Councillor Claire Maugham asked what would scrutiny look like from the tenant’s point of view. If cases crop up where the investigation indicates there might have been something wrong, how would you involve the tenant? The Head of Operations reported that would be handled on a case by case basis. If there was a need to contact a tenant or previous tenant officers would do that or anyone else, officers may need to talk to with regards to the review. Sometimes tenants’ families were involved for example where goods are stored because there were reasons why people were not at home that do not relate to eviction. Officers will explore whatever avenues they need to as a result of the sample.

 

6.38  Councillor Martin Seaton was of the view that all the cases those named that they had been involved in should be reviewed because the potential to abuse the system was clearly demonstrated in this case.

 

6.39  Councillor Damian O’Brien asked about the process of disposing of goods. There was supposed to be a pre-eviction meeting but that had not happened, but ultimately someone arrived at that property to find laptops, paperwork and passports, surely that person should have realised they do not usually dispose of this kind of goods?

 

6.40  The Strategic Director of Housing and Community Services reported that goods were not immediately disposed of, laptops and passports may be taken out of properties but were properly and carefully placed in storage and the former tenants was given the opportunity to get their goods back. This did not happen in this case but the process was very clear about what should happen.

 

6.41  The contractor who removed the goods from the property were Mears, who had taken part in the investigation.

 

6.42  Councillor Ben Johnson asked for officer comments on rent collection procedures not being followed or were the procedures not fit for purpose?

 

6.43  The Head of Operations reported there were comprehensive procedures were in place and there was nothing to suggest in this case that every effort had not been taken. A number of agreements had been reached with Mr AA on various occasions which then broke down. The attempts to contact would have been there on a regular basis from the income officer and Mr AA did not engage.

 

6.44  The chair was concerned about a suggestion in the judgement that the council was not recording deductions from Mr AA’s JSA - it seemed possible that at least in part Mr AA was making an attempt that the council did not acknowledge, and he was worried that might be the case elsewhere.

 

6.45  The Cabinet Member for Housing stated that was a matter worth looking into to make sure that the council are certain on those cases. There had been some improvement in the communication with the Job Centre, and some of those benefits are ones that now the council administers which we would not have done back in 2010. The council now have access to the Job Centre and data that we did not have at that point,

 

6.46  Councillor Claire Maugham asked about the £5k in paragraph 14  to obtain independent legal advice, was it not the case that the court ordered Southwark to make that payment to Mr AA as a credit against the amount it might have to pay in damages. The Lawyer reported to the best of her recollection the sum was ordered in order that Mr AA could seek legal advice. Councillor Claire Maugham stated that the paragraph implied the council offered the money voluntarily.

 

6.47  Councillor Ben Johnson asked had there been any investigation of the non-response to correspondence from the councillors who tried to intervene in Mr AA’s case?

 

6.48  The Head of Operations stated it was not part of the management investigation but there was no reason why it could not be picked up now.

 

6.49  Councillor Martin Seaton suggested that paragraph 14 previously referred to be amended to show that the £5,000 payment was made on the instruction of the court.

 

6.50  The Strategic Director of Housing and Community Services undertook to have the report amended.

 

6.51  Councillor Claire Maugham stated many of the responses that had been given this evening related to process. This did not go to the heart of the issue that this judgement indicates may be present. What are you doing to check that the culture you wish for the department was in fact there? The judgement indicates other officers who were aware and did not report, did not take action.

 

6.52  The Strategic Director of Housing and Community Services reported that this case had been known about for a long time, She did not wait for the judgement to take action. She met with her senior management team every two weeks and a part of the meeting was to discuss culture and staffing issues. We all know that occasionally bad things happen and it was crucial to her how that works when this happens, She did not want people to walk past problems or be defensive or think they were being loyal by not telling management what had happened.

 

6.53  She did not want people to feel there was a blame culture and would not want people to see something and not tell senior management because they feared the consequences. She placed a great priority on getting people in the department to serve people with courtesy and respect, to deal with complaints promptly and to put themselves in the residents’ shoes.Most staff did a fantastic job and really care about what they do and really want to make a difference. We have done a lot to stop these kind of things from happening but can not say that it will never happen again, we have so many staff and residents the scale was huge. The standards expected from staff were very clearly understood. We do not accept it when these incidents happen, and the Head of Operations had personally apologised to Mr AA.

 

6.54  The Head of Operations reported that every 3 months he took half a day with his senior management team and the focus of those sessions were how officers were dealing with our customers.

 

6.55  Councillor Damian O’Brien stated that the letter to Mr AA regarding disposal of his possessions was very poorly worded.  The Cabinet for Member for Housing agreed and said there was a need to get the wording right in such sensitive matters.

 

6.56  Councillor Ben Johnson asked if there was any more the department can do to make sure staff can speak freely if they were aware of things going wrong or whistle blowing?

 

6.57  The Strategic Director reported there were lots of examples and evidence that people do tell management. All officers coming through induction are invited to tell the Leader or Chief Executive - both were very explicit about the kind of behaviour they want to see, things were not perfect yet but there was a real will and commitment to sort these things out.

 

6.58  Councillor Martin Seaton stated that he agreed the department had undergone a sea change and asked does there need to be more opportunity and support for whistle blowing? How do we address fundamental issues of small abuses of power? Maybe the department needs an external mentor to help with fresh ideas on these matters. The member suspected under reporting of low level abuse of power as data suggested there may be more going on.

 

6.59  The Strategic Director reported that officers had a barometer in terms of the staff survey which asks about staff willingness to report things and had they been listened to when they reported things to managers, management wants to see that growing year on year across the council.

 

6.60  The Human Resources Manager reported the next survey would be in February 2015, also all staff get the opportunity to meet their chief officer and cabinet member.

 

6.61  The Director of Legal Services reported that there was a clear whistle blowing policy which gives channels if staff do not want to talk to a manager. She was the whistle blowing officer and saw complaints coming through that route. The policy was actively monitored and there was good management and supervision of all parts of this framework.

 

6.62  The chair stated that councillor Edwards had recently emailed all staff asking for their comments on anything they wanted to raise so that was another potential channel.

 

6.63  The chair with the agreement of the sub-committee thanked the Cabinet member and officers and invited him to return to the next meeting of the sub-committee Monday 26^th January 2015 meeting.

 

Resolved: 1. that the Cabinet Member for Housing report back to the sub-committee on the outcome of the eviction review.

 

2. The sub-committee agree that the report include how the department would look forward and include this incident in training and development.

 

3. That ward councillors be invited to submit cases to the eviction review.