Agenda item

VOID PERFORMANCE REPORT: JANUARY 2020 - MARCH 2020 - YEAR END

Meeting of Housing Scrutiny Commission, Monday, 7 September 2020 4:00 pm (Item 86.)

The Director of Housing submits a report to update Members of the Housing Scrutiny Commission on Void performance for the final quarter and year end 2019/20.

Minutes:

The Director of Housing submitted a report to update Members of the Housing Scrutiny Commission on Void performance for the final quarter and year end 2019/20.

All to note:

· Void performance in the final quarter of 2019/20 had remained consistent, with the all void average remaining under the 90-day target and void rental loss in 19/20 had reduced from the previous year.

· It was anticipated however that the performance in the next quarter would reflect the impacts of Covid-19.

· Members attention was drawn to several tables in the report some of which detailed the average re-let timescales and rent loss as a percentage of rent roll and comparator data which showed that Leicester were positioned in the middles of other comparator authorities.

· Void turnaround times were reported to be not as a good as aspired to this year due to a number of factors including the below points and more;

o Covid-19 resulting in the suspension of Leicester HomeChoice and moves being placed on hold. However, a recovery plan was in place and a report in relation to the impact of Covid-19 would be bought back to the Committee.

o There had been an increase in the poor condition that properties were being returned in.

o A recent issue of reduced capacity of contractors to complete capital works in void properties.

o A pilot project was currently in place to determine whether the number of days for a kitchen to be fit could be reduced from the average 10 working dates it generally takes to be completed.

o Other factors for poor void turn around times were the management of a tenant’s keys leaving a property, recruitment and the issue of there always being employment vacancies in the Void Team.

o The presenting Officer went through the immediate priorities to address service matters.

Following Members comments the below responses were provided;

· The service did take appropriate action.

· All authorities had different definitions for average calculating void times, therefore it was difficult to make a comparison.

· It was confirmed that extra replacements in homes were only done if things were in a bad state or posed a health and safety risk. In the case of kitchens, these were only replaced if not in suitable health and safety condition and over a number of years old.

· The Chair noted the potential for a Void & Repairs working party.

· A Member had received complaints from constituents in relation to repairs being carried out incorrectly by contractors.

· A Member of the Commission queried the timescale for getting back properties and reletting them again and whether it was worth looking at a dedicated team and learning what other authorities were doing well to get a faster turnaround. The officer responded that the service was now dealing with the acquisition programme with improved turnaround times.

· The presenting Officer explained that when a tenant left a property, they tended to cancel any outstanding repair works, therefore when officers entered the property as a void, all was dealt with at that point. The service didn’t currently have the resources to do this and it would have to be on an appointment based system, the service was currently still a manual system. IT were currently looking at a mobile system.

· It was also noted that the service tried pre-void inspections previously however there were access issues as the departing tenants were generally not interested in booking slots for the work to be carried out.

· The Assistant City Mayor for Housing noted that voids and turnover times remained very important. The plan was to identify any barriers which were taking long to identify voids and number of voids coming back due to mistreatment of the property.