Agenda item

This report provides an update to the Housing Scrutiny Commission on the formation of a Divisional Engagement and Communication Strategy for the Tenants and Leaseholders who live in properties owned and managed by Leicester City Council.

The Director of Housing submitted a report which provided an update on the formation of a Divisional and Communication Strategy for the Tenants and Leaseholders who live in properties owned and managed by Leicester City Council. 

The Deputy City Mayor introduced the item, and it was noted that:

·       Previously, the infrastructure that existed in the local authority and VCS was far larger and there were far more active tenant associations in the city. Unfortunately, years of austerity, budget cuts and the Covid pandemic fundamentally eroded them.

·       A key complaint faced was that tenants had not been able to contact their housing officer. The role of the housing officer had evolved to meet the increasingly complex needs of tenants which meant that the service had changed as well.

·       The Council recognised the role they needed to play in responding to tenants.

·       Tenancy engagement was first discussed 18 months ago. The Council wanted to provide a more consistent offer that allowed equal opportunity for engagement.

·       Engagement sessions had begun last year. Out of these had come clear messages from tenants which had led to the development of the pop-up Housing offices. Further work was needed to build on what had been started and to use the good practises found and this was to form a bigger piece of work moving forward.

The Head of Service presented the report, and it was noted that:

·       The report provided an update on the strategy and structures that were being put in place which would allow tenants to scrutinise the Council, including the Tenant Engagement Strategy. 

·       It was highlighted that this was a journey to improve engagement, and success was to be measured by tenant satisfaction.

·       The first Tenant Satisfaction Measures (TSM) occurred in 2023. This showed that 40.2% of tenants felt that they were listened to, and 46.8% thought that they were kept informed on important issues.

·       The tenants were asked for their preferences, and alongside this were conversations in a pre-engagement process with tenants, the Tenancy Management Team and Neighbourhood Housing Officers.

·       6 engagement sessions occurred across the city, either on or near council housing estates in September 2024. The sessions provided a representative sample of tenants through face-to-face conversations and surveys. The methodology used attempted to capture the views of as many tenants as possible. However it was recognised that some demographics may not have fed into the pre-engagement period. It was hoped that these demographics would be captured as the engagement progressed.

·       54% of the respondents wanted service updates by email or text and 23% via phone.

·       Respondents wanted more information on repairs, a means for contacting their housing officer, and concerns were raised on the difficulty of getting through via phone lines.

·       For future engagement with the Housing Division, the majority of respondents were in favour of in-person events, community events or the use of surveys.

·       The Social Housing (Regulation) Act received Royal Assent in July 2023 which granted more powers to the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH). This allowed a more proactive management regime for the providers of social housing. The Act introduced consumer standards, which were to allow assessment of performance and outcomes for customers. A Transparency, Influence and Accountability Standard was also introduced. Along with this, there was a variety of legislation which the Housing Division must comply with, including the Housing Acts and the Landlord and Tenant Act.

·       A revised Code of Practise was published, which advocated for tenants being at the heart of decision making. This was taken forward in the strategy.

·       The current engagement structure had allowed tenants to be involved in shaping a number of services through consultation and engagement.

·       The survey had informed the strategy and had increased the focus on opportunities for face-to-face interactions, improved communications and increased use of WhatsApp, email and text.

·       The recruitment of 3 district engagement officers was planned. These were to work across the city to help engage with tenants and facilitate the pop-up housing offices.

·       The strategy had been launched at a city-wide event in January. 80 tenants attended and the response appeared enthusiastic.

·       Tenants were encouraged to be involved in the tenant’s scrutiny panel which was to scrutinise the housing services. The first meeting took place on 18^th March. The initial meeting considered the terms of reference, agenda and work programme. The tenants had already identified areas of performance they wanted to monitor.

·       It was noted that linking the two scrutiny commissions would be beneficial. 

·       It was an ongoing part of the strategy to consider how to encompass the diverse population of the city.

In response to questions and comments from Members, it was noted that:

·       Attempts had been made to engage with as many tenants as possible using alternative methods, such as leaflets and the incoming engagement officers who would be able to visit tenants in their homes or arrange sessions out of working hours, which allowed for work or childcare.

·       The buildings that housed the housing offices were closed many years ago due to the cost of running them and the decreased footfall. Many of the housing offices and front of house service offer had been incorporated into other community hubs such as libraries.

·       There had been a move to online services, but there remained a cohort of tenants who want face-to-face interaction. The advantage of the pop-up offices was that they allowed face-to-face interactions without the associated costs of running a building.

·       Concerns were raised that there was a lack of communication for those applying to be council tenants, particularly while on the register. The development of an engagement strategy aimed at those applying or waiting would be useful.

·       There were around 6000 people waiting to be council tenants. Once they had applied, a letter of acknowledgement is sent, which makes the lack of social housing clear.

·       A different team was allocated to those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. The drop-in sessions demonstrated that Homelessness Officers needed to be out in the community in a similar way to the Housing Officers. There was a lack of Homelessness Officers, but recruitment had now taken place with 30 officers in position, and the team was now looking to set these sessions up.

·       It was queried whether AI technology could be used to help tenants, particularly with different languages. There was an ongoing corporate piece of work ongoing which was considering the use of AI to respond to basic enquiries.

·       Members requested that pop- up housing office dates and locations were to be circulated for them to share with their constituents.

·       There remained a landline for Housing Options which is 0116 454 1008. The Council needed to make better use of social media and WhatsApp. Doctors and dentists for example, were far more adept at using these channels for communications.

·       Members asked that updates and the outcomes of the tenant panels be brought to this Commission.

·       The most marginalised communities still faced barriers such as language and technology access including lack of email addresses.

·       There were those who were illiterate in their first language, demonstrating the importance of engaging with local community groups with community language speakers.

·       It was intended that the engagement officers would start work on how to reach and engage with the pockets of hard-to-reach communities in the city.

·       The workforce was representative of the city, and the officers were deliberately placed in areas where their language skills would be of the most use. There was also a telephone translation service, and if IT literate, the web system can translate automatically if needed.

·       The pop-up offices were a pilot which was to be reviewed after 12 months. At this point, it was intended to consider how it had worked and what could be taken forward based on the need and benefit found in the communities.

·       The housing team had several initiatives in mind and there were different ways that tenant engagement could be incorporated. However, this was to be dependent on the engagement that was received and whether it was representative. It was intended that a periodic report would measure this as the strategy was rolled out.

·       There were 500 tenant responses on the consultation which resulted in changes after it was considered by the Deputy City Mayor and the Director of Housing. This was done in addition to a consultation on anti-social behaviour and took nearly a year to finalise  as it was continuously reviewed based on the feedback received from tenants and partners. If changes were not feasible, feedback was always provided to explain why. 

AGREED:

1.    The Commission noted the report.

2.    A report to come back the Commission on engagement with prospective tenants who have applied or are waiting on the social housing register. Including developments of the Homelessness Officers work in the community.

3.    Update to be brought from tenants’ scrutiny and ensure that their attendance at Housing Scrutiny Commission is enabled.

4.    Pop-up office dates to be circulated to Members.

5.    A report on the pop-up office pilot to come back in 12 months.