Agenda item

The Director of Housing submits a report to provide an update on the Division’s performance on the turnaround of empty council houses. The report details the steady progress being made against key performance indicators for routine and long-term voids since April 2014. Members of the Housing Scrutiny Commission are recommended to receive and note the report.

The Director of Housing submitted a report which informed the Commission of the progress made in the Voids Improvement Project as previously requested. The Director noted that improvements had been made with 14% more properties let in the past year and rental income was up 18%.

Members of the Commission asked questions / made comments on the on the following matters:

It was noted that long term voids had increased from 62 to 78, not reduced as indicated in the report.

In relation to queries about a visit to Nottingham City Homes, Voids Project Manager, Melanie Harris informed the Commission that the visit was mainly about information and best practice sharing. It was noted that they were an arm’s length management organisation which was different from Leicester, so some of their challenges were different, but some matters, such as key control were to be explored in Leicester to see if void times could be improved. Further queries were raised about the numbers of staff that Nottingham employed, and how this compared to Leicester. Melanie explained that it was difficult to compare as the property profile for the two cities was different. The main difference being Leicester’s homes were generally older.

In response to a question on the St. Peter’s tower block financial implications, it was noted that this was a different project and a further report on that could be provided if requested.

Queries were raised about categories of void cases and numbers not meeting the category specification for repairs. Melanie informed the meeting that voids were treated differently to responsive repairs. She explained that it wasn’t possible to know what kind of repairs were needed on a void house until it became empty and was inspected. For example there could be damp issues / pest control issue, or just decoration. A profile of historic trends was being explored in order to determine targets. More details would be provided in future as information became available in terms of how individual houses were targeted.

In response to a query about numbers of voids per ward, Melanie agreed to circulate the figures and provide more details in future reports.

A query was raised about the income from charges to tenants for any damage caused. Melanie informed the meeting that it was a standard charging scheme and in the past year 357 tenants were re-charged a total of £345k. Photographic evidence was always recorded to ensure a successful charge. The recharging was handled by corporate finance / legal. Melanie undertook to find out how successful this was. Figures per ward were requested.

It was queried whether asbestos was creating time delays for voids. Melanie noted that the Asbestos team in Technical Services were meeting their targets.

A number of comments were made in relation to the kitchen and bathroom replacement scheme. Melanie explained that the target given for these replacements was generated on a score that the clerk of works determined following an inspection, but the general target was 10 days, but most jobs were completed much quicker. Further comments were made regarding the 10 day target, that this seemed too long. Melanie explained that a new ring main and water entry point were put in as standard. Also some jobs were more complex than others and could include floor screeding and wall plastering, and time for drying needed to be included if this was done.

It was noted that 3.3.2 of the report indicated that re-let time had increased, an explanation for this was requested. Melanie noted that there were peaks and troughs, but the figures were affected if there was a single case that was particularly problematic, ie it required major structural work or adaptations for disability. Issues were being looked at for long term voids to better control the difficult cases.

With regard to adaptations, it was queried whether any best practice ideas had been gleaned from other authorities. Melanie noted that this hadn’t been done up until now, but would be looked at over the next few months and benchmarking information would be provided in future reports.

In reference to 2.2 of the report where it notes further work was required to return to 2012 levels, it was queried what work needed to be undertaken to achieve this target. Melanie commented that there were plans to be more ambitious than meeting the 2012 level. There were a large number of different projects going on looking at every part of the voids / re-let process. In particular, better engagement with tenants was planned to use the 28 day termination period to seek the applicants views on works to be done which could avoid delays later. Work was also underway to look at making the Voids service better able to work mobile.

With reference to 3.3.11 of the report which refers to a growth in unauthorised work, it was queried what work was being done to make tenants aware of their responsibilities in relation to this. Melanie noted that area managers would tell tenants who were due to leave a property what was required and it would be followed up with an inspection. Charges would be levied where tenants didn’t meet their responsibilities.

In reference to a question on the milestones mentioned at 3.4.3 of the report, Melanie noted that these were specific improvements delivered by the project. For example the key control achievement meant that more than one team of craft operatives working on a property at one time and this helped reduce void times. Targets were being developed for future work, this would involve seeking comparative data from other authorities, but it was often difficult to ensure that data was directly comparative because things were often recorded differently at each authority.

The Chair commented, in relation to the work planned for the next six – 12 months that the Commission would want more reassurance that things were moving in the right direction.

It was noted that the figures at Appendix A of the report were wrong. It was requested that the Democratic Support Officer ensure that reports were printed correctly in future. The correct appendix A was to be circulated to Members.

The Chair asked the Executive Member for Housing to comment. He noted that it could have been easy to throw money at this issue, but it wouldn’t necessarily have meant smarter working. He felt that things were moving in the right direction and the project was exploring all aspects of the voids issue. He noted that this was a work in progress, but he hoped that progress would move quicker in future.

RESOLVED:

1)    That the report be noted;

2)    That the Voids Project Manager be thanked for he explanations to Member’s queries; and

3)    That the Commission convene a task group to look at voids in more detail.