Agenda item

- Interview with Housing Officers 

- Interview with Kim Humphreys, Former Executive Member for Housing

- Interview with Councillor Annod Al-Samerai, Riverside Ward

 

5.1  The Chair welcomed members and visitors to the meeting and asked them to introduce themselves.

 

5.2  He introduced the 4 squares agenda item, explaining that the purpose of this meeting was to find out what had happened to get to today’s situation and how things could be moved forward here. He emphasised that this meeting would not be the only opportunity to discuss this issue but the sub-committee would get as far as it could.

 

5.3  The discussion began with members asking questions of officers.

 

5.4  When was it known that there was not enough money to complete the works?

 

Officers responded that this was not clear from the start but became clear after the second phase of the works. There was an overspend due to a mix of factors.

 

5.5  When did you know about the overspend on phase 1 of the work?

 

After the second phase of the work.

 

5.6  Did you call a meeting of residents to explain the situation?

 

No, officers recognised that this was a fault - the communication had not been effective enough.

 

5.7  Was the overspend due to the contractors being poor?

 

Ensuring the level of contractor performance pushed the overall cost of the project up. Officers commented that from experience projects of this kind cost more as time went on.

 

5.8  Was money recouped from poor contractor performance?

 

Action was taken and officers offered to find out the details. None of the officers present were in post during the first phase of the 4 squares work.

 

5.9  The overspend was considerable, not small. Did nobody know?

 

Action was taken on the first phase of the contract and a different contractor was used for the second phase.

 

5.10  Why did officers not notice the overall funding issue? How many contractors were involved? Members felt that a meeting should have been held with residents

 

It was wrong not to update residents who had been led to believe that the work would be done. The commitment had been made without certanty of funding being available.

 

5.11  What were Members told?

 

There may have been some mis-communication. Officers had put forward a programme of work for the future and this had not included 4 Squares; members may have assumed that it was an existing and ongoing project

 

5.12  Why did the contract and the specification produce an overspend? There was an expectation that there would be additional money – why was there confusion over this?

 

Until the stock condition survey became available there was no real baseline of the level of resources necessary to deliver the overall housing investment need. Difficult choices had to be made because there was a gap between need and the resources available.

 

5.13  The chair clarified that the situation now was one of an overall housing funding shortfall of some £300 million and no decision had yet been made on how that would be met.

 

5.14  What has happened to the remainder of the £8 million which was allocated? There is a feeling amongst residents that they had already won agreement to the programme of works which is not now going ahead. There has been misinformation which has not treated residents and councillors in a respectful way.

 

  The remainder of the money is part of the overall available resource against which future investment is now being considered

 

Councillor Al-Samerai said that she was aware that an £998,000 overspend on the project had been signed off by officers

 

The Decent Homes standard was different to the security works which were planned for 4 squares

 

5.15  Are there any plans to spend the remainder of the money on the 4 squares issues? In particular to look into community safety and vandalism issues?

 

The resources allocated to 4 squares were not ring-fenced. All future decisions on the housing investment programme will be made in the context of the stock condition survey.

 

5.16  £8 million was allocated - why was it not ring-fenced?

 

If there was a previous cabinet decision to allocate £8million ring-fenced for this project no record of that decision has been identified.

 

The decision to not continue to spend had been taken as a delegated decision.

 

There was a point in 2009 at which a decision was taken to put forward a plan of work that was affordable. 4 squares was not in that plan but the council did not specifically say it was not going to go ahead.

 

5.17  Was there a written statement in 2009 explaining that the planned 4 squares works would not go ahead?

 

There was not. This was a delegated decision, meaning it was for officers to decide rather than for councillors.

 

 

5.18  Questions followed to Kim Humphreys, the former executive member for housing.

 

5.19  It seemed as if the problem emerged within the first couple of years of the contract. Did the contractor come and say it was going wrong? Who does the decision come to in the Council that the contractor can do that?

 

The former executive member explained that 4 squares was two contracts. As Executive Member for housing he would get reports for overcosts on housing and there were none for 4 squares. He also pointed out he was not in post at that time, these reports were what he received after this.

 

5.20  If everyone knew that there was an overspend and a problem with the contracts, how come nobody seemed to know that the additional work would not go ahead?

 

The former executive member did not see an overspend because the overspending problems occurred during the course of the first contract, when he was not in post.

 

5.21  When did the executive member become aware that the work would not go ahead?

 

He was aware that some major works would not go ahead in 2009. This was a public decision which was well publicised at Tennants Council and Area Forums. Rather than contracting for individual jobs it was the intention to move to a system with a small number of major works contractors, which would have provided a greater degree of flexibility.

 

5.22  At what point did the former executive member know that the works would not be done within the £8 million allocation?

 

It was explained that he was aware in 2009 that this work had to be balanced against other issues in the major works budget

 

5.23  When you were asked in February 2010 by the local councillor about the project what did you tell her about the work being completed?

 

The former executive member had talked about the work being completed but not where the money would be coming from. At the time it was hoped that JSI funding would help to find additional resources.

 

5.24  The local councillor referred to an e-mail exchange which made a commitment to the funding. There was a mis-explanation of the situation.

 

She made the point that the security works needed were quite separate from the major works contracts with their focus on Decent Homes.

 

It suggested that it would be possible that work could be done under a contract that wrapped up both.

 

5.25  Was there something that stopped open communications? Could the same sort of thing happen again?

 

It was all about allocations of money from central government. The funds available for major works were insufficient for the work that needed to be done. This situation was not unique to Southwark.

 

5.26  The elected members in Southwark decided on a Decent Homes plus standard. Why?

 

It was explained this was about tenant expectations. There was work going on but little alteration within flats, not the amount of work on kitchens and bathrooms that people wanted. The 2010 Decent Homes deadline was always an artificial government deadline, it was clear that local authorities would need longer.

 

5.27  What the people at 4 squares wanted was a well managed and maintained estate.

 

It was confirmed that the security works at 4 squares were not about decent homes but were a separate issue.

 

5.28  Was there a problem of member/officer communications?

 

The two year programme was explicit to all members

 

The decision was taken in 2009 about the future work programme. This did not mean that the work would not be done, just that it was not part of that particular programme.

 

The 2009 programme set out what the council was going to do. The only way of knowing if there was enough money was by waiting for the stock condition survey.

 

  The current cabinet member has agreed to look at this matter as part of the next report on housing investment linked on the forward plan for April.

 

5.29  The chair invited comments from local residents and questions to Councillor Al-Samerai.

 

5.30  Councillor Al-Samerai said her expectation was that the allocation was made and the work would be done. She had not expected to see it in the two year work programme as the money had been previously allocated. She became worried about it last year, and the e-mail correspondence was not clear. The message she received was that it would take longer to do, not that the resources were insufficient.

 

5.31  The chair of the local residents explained how they felt it was difficult to get a clear answer. They felt that between 2002 and 2006 it was viewed that the resources were not enough, but it seemed that it was not until 2009 that the local authority realised this.

 

5.32  The job was tendered for because of the level of anti-social behaviour that the community was experiencing, not because of the decent homes standard.

 

5.33  A local resident commented that he felt it obvious that there was mis-management of the contract but nobody would take the blame or the responsibility. He claimed that the original £8million allocation should cover the costs especially if you added on the amount that leaseholders had paid towards the scheme. There were 80-100 leaseholders who had each paid between £13 and £18,000.

 

5.34  A local resident expressed her frustration that local residents were now being told that the rest of the money would go towards delivering the decent homes standard.

 

5.35  Why did the work in the 3^rd block go out to tender when it was known that resources were insufficient to complete the work?

 

It was explained that lots of projects were put out to tender as the council wanted to get an idea of prices in order to establish which work could be done

 

Councillor Al-Samerai highlighted that the tender process had created raised expectations.

 

5.36  Councillor Edwards thanked everyone for their contributions and emphasised that this was now an urgent matter for the sub-committee which would be considered again at the next meeting.

 

5.37  Residents and visitors to the meeting were asked to leave contact information in order to be kept up to date with the progress of this issue by the sub-committee.