Agenda item

a)      Chrissie Field, Leicester City Council’s Area Housing Manager for Humberstone and Rowlatts Hill, will be present at the meeting to talk about her role.

 

b)      Suzanne Collins, Property Lettings Manager with Leicester City Council, will give a presentation on the Council’s Choice Based Lettings system.

HOUSING ISSUES

 

a)     Housing Management and Refurbishment of Properties

 

Chrissie Field, (Leicester City Council’s new Area Manager for Humberstone and Rowlatts Hill), introduced herself to the meeting, explaining that area management of the City had been reorganised, so that Team Leaders were now the first point of contact on housing matters.  As Area Manager, Chrissie was responsible for writing an Area Plan for her areas of responsibility.  She also had to try to attract external funding to the service, although it was recognised that this was difficult in the current economic conditions.

 

Chrissie Field then gave an update on the City Council’s kitchen and bathroom refurbishment programme for its housing stock:-

 

·            Various criteria had to be met, including whether a property was 30 years old or more and whether significant repairs had not been done recently.  Specific repairs were listed in the criteria that disqualified properties from bathroom and kitchen refurbishment;

 

·            To date, 346 Leicester Standard kitchens and 377 Bathrooms for Life had been installed;

 

·            As part of the 2010/11 Capital Programme, it was hoped to install 29 further kitchens and bathrooms; and

 

·            A problem had been encountered with the shape of one type of kitchen in certain bungalows, in that some bathroom space had to be used to accommodate the kitchen.

 

The following points were made during discussion on this and in response to questions:-

 

·            Dave Pate, (Director of Housing Services with Leicester City Council), explained that the amount of redecoration grant that was given to people who had had refurbishment work done was reviewed every year as part of the Housing Revenue Grant, although it had not increased for a number of years. It would be considered again this year as part of the budget process;

 

·            Chrissie Field undertook to find out whether the bungalows referred to above, which had a difficult shaped kitchen, were mixed in with other types of housing, or whether they were all located together;

 

·            Kitchens usually would be refurbished when properties were void, to avoid disrupting tenants;

 

·            It would not be possible to let the Council’s workers redecorate properties they refurbished, due to budget constraints.  (The Council had stopped doing internal redecoration work some years ago, which was why the redecoration allowance now was given);

 

·            Dave Pate explained that, if contractors did not do their work properly, or created problems for tenants, the Council needed to be told about it.  The Council then would consider what had happened and find the most appropriate way to resolve the situation;

 

·            Tenants were advised by operatives that having three ad hoc items replaced in their kitchen could mean that they had lower priority for a full refurbishment.  The possibility of introducing a standardised leaflet to remind people of this would be considered;

 

·            If repairs to work were needed within a guarantee period, the Council would do these and recharge the contractor;

 

·            Cases would be assessed on their individual merits when requests for work were receoved.  Each case was given points based on need and work allocated to those with the highest number of points first;

 

·            There currently was a 35 day turn-round for properties when empty, but officers recognised that this was too long.  Work was underway to reduce this time, but government requirements regarding items such as working with asbestos and electrical work could slow down the work being done;

 

·            The feasibility of giving neighbours notice of when work was to be done on properties, to try and minimise disruption, would be considered; and

 

·            There currently was no loft insulation programme running.  The Council reacted to individual requests received for loft insulation to be installed.  It also was anticipated that properties that needed their lofts insulated would be identified through the annual home check.

 

Action	Officer Identified	Deadline
Investigations to be made in to whether the bungalows which had a difficult shaped kitchen were mixed in with other types of housing, or whether they were all located together	Chrissie Field	Next meeting

 

b)    Decent Homes Standard

 

Paul Lowe, (Planning and Major Works Manager (Housing Services) with Leicester City Council), reminded the meeting that the Decent Homes Standard had been introduced approximately 11 years ago.  Leicester City Council had been successful in achieving this.  He further advised that:-

 

·            At present 1,222 of Thurncourt Ward’s 1,232 properties now met the Standard;

 

·            Of the properties that currently did not meet the Standard, 3 needed new boilers, 3 needed their kitchens refurbished, 5 needed their bathrooms  refurbished and 1 needed to be rewired;

 

·            To date, £128,709 had been spent in the Thurncourt Ward to being properties up to the Decent Homes Standard; and

 

·            It had been identified that some roof covers in Stornaway Road needed replacing.

 

Paul Lowe then explained that the City Council had introduced a Mobile Works and Repairs service.  Under this, the City had been divided in to 6 areas and work was allocated to staff on an area basis.  Individual jobs were sent to operatives out in the field through a hand-held computer.  Materials for standard jobs were kept loaded in vans and stayed with the operative.  These were replenished, or additional materials were provided, by lorries delivering to the vans while out in the field, so the vans did not need to return to the depot. 

 

This way of working had several advantages.  For example, the number of jobs being completed on an operative’s first visit had increased from approximately 73% to nearly 90% and, as operatives stayed in the same patch, they got to know the properties in that area and the tenants.

 

In response to questions, Paul Lowe explained that:-

 

·            Vans were required to adhere to parking restrictions wherever the operatives were working.  This included not parking on grass verges;

 

·            The multi-tasking approach to repairs work appeared to be working well.  In addition, the first group of apprentices were beginning finish their training, so the number of operatives trained in a number of work areas was increasing.

 

c)     Choice Based Lettings System (“HomeChoice”)

 

Suzanne Collins, (Property Lettings Manager with Leicester City Council), then gave a presentation on the Council’s Choice Based Lettings Scheme, (“Leicester HomeChoice”), a copy of which is attached at the end of these minutes for information.

 

During the presentation, Suzanne Collins drew particular attention to the following:-

 

·            The City Council’s allocations policy was unchanged, but all properties available were advertised and people then applied for which properties they would like to be considered for;

 

·            No additional housing was available, but some housing associations now let some or all of their properties through this scheme;

 

·            At present, all applications needed to be made on an application form.  It was anticipated that people soon would be able to apply on-line, which it was hoped would be quicker;

 

·            If someone was eligible to go on the register, they would be sent a letter confirming this and setting out how many points they had.  Their PIN number was sent out separately, for security;

 

·            Applicants for each property were electronically ranked in order of priority, based on the number of points they had.  As properties were allocated on a points basis, not a first-come first-served basis, it did not matter when in the cycle someone expressed an interest in a particular property;

 

·            Applicants could apply for up to 3 properties per week that they were eligible for, but there was no requirement to do so;

 

·            Anyone could refuse up to three offers of property in a 12-month period, but they only would be offered property they had expressed an interest in;

 

·            If applicants’ reasons for refusing a property were acceptable under the policy, they could receive more offers.  However, if their reasons were not acceptable, their points total would be reduced for 12 months;

 

·            Vulnerable people could use an auto-select option, whereby the computer automatically selected properties for which they were eligible.  They were not obliged to accept such properties an could apply in the usual way if they wished;

 

·            It was hoped that in the future private landlords also could let property through the HomeChoice system; and

 

·            In response to a question, it was advised that brochure costs were kept to a minimum by only printing approximately 100 copies per week and updating it electronically.  It was anticipated that the number printed would reduce as people became more familiar with the system and made more use of the electronic brochure.

 

d)    Housing Capital Improvement Works 

 

Marlene Blake, (a Neighbourhood Housing Team Leader with Leicester City Council), introduced information on housing capital improvement works, which had been tabled at the meeting.  A copy of this is attached at the end of these minutes for information.

 

It was noted that the proposals for the schemes came from a variety of sources, including tenants and officers working on the patch.  Officers advised that all of the schemes submitted for 2010/11 had been approved and drew particular attention to the following:-

 

·            The covert cameras would be kept centrally in the Ward until needed, as many reports were received of cases that needed surveillance.  It was anticipated that between 8 and 10 cameras would be bought, depending on the quality of the cameras;

 

·            If the cameras were lent to other areas, this would be on a short-term basis and Thurncourt residents would take priority;

 

·            Good results had been obtained from using covert cameras in other areas and housing inspectors favoured their use.  Legal action would be taken if considered appropriate from the evidence gathered;

 

·            Surveillance could be undertaken as long as the cameras did not go over the boundary of the property from which surveillance was being undertaken.  If surveillance of a wider area was needed, the Council had to put up notices advising that cameras were in the locality, (although it did not have to reveal where any cameras were located);

 

·            Requests for covert surveillance to be undertaken could be made to either the Police or the City Council; and

 

·            Letters advising that the request for funding had been successful were being prepared to send to people affected by the fencing schemes.

 

e)     Thurnby Lodge Housing Office

 

Dave Pate, (Director of Housing Services with Leicester City Council), advised the meeting that, due to a shortage of officers to the City’s current housing offices, a decision recently had been taken to close the Thurnby Lodge Housing Office for three days per week on a temporary basis.  This was starting this week.

 

Dave Pate stressed that this had not been an easy decision, but enabled staff to be concentrated where there was the largest footfall per hour.  Unfortunately, the number of visitors to the Thurnby Lodge office averaged less than 3 people per hour.  Most visitors went to the office to make payments, but there were other facilities in the area they could use for this purpose.

 

Residents expressed anger that it appeared that it had taken press and media reports for the Council to realise that residents saw the Thurnby Lodge Housing Office as the core of the estate.  Residents further stated that:-

 

·        a petition against the proposals was being prepared;

 

·        as they paid their rents to the Council, they expected a certain level of service in return; and

 

·        Although consultation had been carried out through the Tenants and Residents Association, this had only been a general consultation on the possibility of some offices closing.  No particular offices had been identified, which lacked transparency.

 

In reply, Dave Pate explained that the change in opening hours was being made on a temporary basis.  A long-term decision would not be made until January 2011, when the budgets for 2011/12 were being considered.  At present, it was not known what the government’s spending review on 20 October 2010 would contain, but it already had suggested that a 25% reduction in some services could be required.  This could impact on any decision to be made, as the service was legally required to balance its accounts.  Residents would be consulted on any changes proposed.

 

In summary, residents at the meeting expressed their opposition to the closure of the Thurnby Lodge Housing Office and the Ward Councillors thanked all present for their contribution to the debate.