Minutes:
6.1 Councillor Edwards thanked Councillor Wingfield for joining the sub-committee for a discussion on housing priorities for the year.
6.2 Councillor Wingfield talked about the importance of the clean, dry and safe information and the need to be clear about how and why the places on the list had been picked. He explained that there was a need to get the information out quickly and that it would be important to go through it with a fine-toothed comb to remove any inaccuracies on the list.
6.3 Members of the sub-committee commented on how useful it was to have this information, and asked whether it could be broken down by ward and the inaccuracies removed. It was agreed that this information would be made available to councillors by ward.
6.4 Councillor Wingfield talked about Leaseholder Charging and his view that there was a need to look into how the charging process worked and what could be done better to ensure fairness to leaseholders. He suggested that it would be useful for the sub-committee to investigate the systems in place and make recommendations on areas that need improving.
6.5 He explained to the sub-committee that he had asked all councillors to pass him information about concerns raised by local residents about leaseholder charging. He explained that he was concerned that the examples brought to his attention were only the “tip of the iceberg”.
Councillor Wingfied went on to explain that from his perspective, although the council did comply to the letter of the law on leaseholder charging issues, this was not always the same as treating leaseholders in the best way it could. He was concerned that on some occasions leaseholders were having to sign away equity because of the costs associated with being a leaseholder.
6.6 A discussion took place about housing repairs and the issue of rewarding and incentivising tenants to look after their property. The way the system worked, property that was not looked after by tenants became a higher priority on the list for repairs. Members of the sub-committee felt it would be useful to have some form of incentive scheme for people who looked after their property. In the longer term this would save money for the repairs service.
6.7 The issue of the call centre was discussed, in the context of response times and the quality of service received. It was explained to the sub-committee that a new Head of Customer Experience was now in place with experience of managing a call centre in a local authority environment.
6.8 A query was raised about housing consultation structures and whether any discussions were taking place about the realignment of Area Housing Forums. Councillor Wingfield responded that residents like the area-based forums and that there was no intention to make any changes at this point in time.
6.9 The sub-committee discussed the issue of black pin mould in properties and whether a booklet for residents about managing condensation and mould could be prepared and distributed pro-actively. Councillor Wingfield explained that this particular issue seemed to arise in property inherited from the former GLC. The Housing Investment Programme recognised this issue and included work to install venting to reduce mould. A very useful leaflet existed and it was agreed that it would be possible to send this to all residents, as to some extent the mould was caused by resident activity.
6.10 A discussion took place on local estate management and empowerment and whether the council could look into larger estates having their own repairs teams and whether this would lead to a more cost-effective and higher quality solution to housing repairs.
6.11 Councillor Wingfield agreed that empowering people to take responsibility for managing their estate lead to more sustainable communities and an increased level of pride in the estate. In places with a TMO, localisation of services resulted in higher satisfaction levels, however not all residents were in favour of TMOs and a solution was needed for those estates that did not want a TMO, or where the TMO was not operating effectively. In addition, moving to this local model could result in a huge variation in the quality of work.
6.12 On the issues of delegation of repairs and smaller contracts, Councillor Wingfield expressed sympathy with this model but explained that before introducing more changes, the current priority was to make sure that the contracts that were in place operated effectively. Within the next 12 months the council should start to see results.
6.13 Councillor Wingfield invited sub-committee members to make suggestions on how things could be done differently to achieve a healthy balance between central and local management.
6.14 The issue of communal repairs and the call-centre was discussed and whether there was an adequate system in place to ensure that the person taking the call had a sufficient level of knowledge to deal with it effectively and ensure that communal repairs were followed up and handled effectively. Councillor Wingfield responded that the call centre working party had picked this issue up.
6.15 A query was raised over TRA halls and whether there were any plans to tackle the number and use of TRA halls. Councillor Wingfield responded that this was a politically sensitive issue but that there was a need to be mindful of the best use of public money and agreed that TRA halls should be looked at in terms of value for money. A look into this by the sub-committee could be useful.
6.16 Members expressed concern that the current high level of resource needed to ensure warm, dry and safe homes had arisen because of insufficient preventative property maintenance work in the past. This meant that the 5 year investment plan would get to decent homes standard but no further, leaving a gap in planned property maintenance. There was a shared concern that the council did not have a robust planned maintenance programme. Councillor Wingfield suggested that it would be helpful to have an open discussion with leaseholders on this issue.
6.17 The sub-committee discussed the priority given to ex-armed service personnel on council housing waiting lists, and the fact that the housing minister was supportive of what the council was trying to do. Councillor Wingfield confirmed that the council did want to make the change to give a higher priority to disabled ex-army personnel, and that the option to extend this to all ex-service personnel was currently being consulted on. This was being pursued through a national process and it was hoped that local MPs will support the change of law nationally.
6.18 Councillor Edwards thanked Councillor Wingfield for an open, useful and wide ranging discussion.