Agenda item

Tony Butler, Head of Leeds Building Services will present to the Board an overview of the repairs service in East Leeds as the first part of the inquiry into the repairs service.

Members will have the opportunity to ask questions about the briefing to the Head of Leeds Building Services.

The Chair introduced this item and Tony Butler, Head of Leeds Building Services.

TB gave a brief history of his experience and also the history of the Internal Service Provider and how it came to be. It was noted that at the point the ALMOs were merged back into the Council, there were two direct labour organisations – one doing work such as lifts, school repairs, libraries (referred to as Property Maintenance), whereas Construction Services deal with housing repairs and maintenance only. Given this meant there were two lots of overhead costs it was agreed to merge them into one Internal Service Provider from 1^st August 2015.

The Chair asked about budget allocations and how this is calculated. TB explained that this is based on the stock numbers and stock condition information.  As a follow up the Chair asked if this meant that poorer areas received more money for repairs and maintenance and TB confirmed this was generally the case. The Chair asked if budget information was available for the 3 areas as previously requested. It was confirmed it is available, SG to follow up.

The Chair asked if performance targets had not been met due to data inputting issues. TB explained bringing the two internal organisations together had meant there were some difficulties. TB explained Property Maintenance used a system called Total Mobile and Construction Services used Orchard Direct Works.

It was explained that Construction Services use PDA handheld devices which were liable to faults and there had been issues where work had been completed but the PDA had not picked this up. As a consequence of this a team is investigating completed work. They are also looking at sub-contractors who may complete a job early on in the month but then not invoice for the work until the end of the month which means jobs are not showing as completed within timescale when they had. This has been discussed with all sub-contractors.  There is a pilot area where this is being done and that is showing improvements already.

Because of the issues with Direct Works, the contract for this is to be ended and the Internal Service Provider will use only Total Works in future.

TB explained that it is not just a technology issue that has caused problems; there are some human errors as well.

MH asked if it was possible to change to a tablet device. TB noted this is not seamless and the use of Total Mobile would be more effective at dealing with jobs. The Chair asked and it was confirmed if there was a training plan in place to help staff carry out their role effectively.

CG asked the evidence given so far suggests it is not just a system issue and could this be masking the issues? TB acknowledged staffing shortages of operatives to carry out work but there were also issues when it came to transferring location and also  training issues with staff on the system.

A question was asked if all repair calls are dealt the same. TB confirmed this was the case and this is because the unique property reference number assigned to each property directs which contract a repair will go to. RI queried if the calls are dealt with the same then why is performance better in West and South Leeds? TB noted there have been issues with recruitment, especially with agency staff. Mears also have the advantage of a scheduling tool and handheld devices which LBS don’t have.

A question was asked about the complaints process. TB confirmed that this is same process regardless of who the contractor is. As a follow up it was then queried how many go to the Ombudsman or a designated person and it was explained there were very few progressed to Ombudsman.

PM asked how many operatives the Internal Service Provider has.  It was explained there are 396 operatives, and of this 44 are apprentices. However, it was noted that compared nationally with other internal service providers this is a large number but it should be noted that other ISPs do not do other work such as libraries, lifts, schools etc. The split of the 396 operatives is 200 on voids and day to day work and 196 on commercial works.

MH asked if there were any efficiencies to be made between services. TB explained LBS are a non-profit making organisation with any profits that are made returned to the Council.

It was then queried why not do everything in house? TB explained that Leeds is too large for one organisation to deal with. However the ISP may look to take on further work as time goes on, which will occur when contracts naturally expire but this is a decision that would have to be taken at a later date.

TB explained he has a three year improvement project plan. First year is to focus on harmonising terms and conditions of employees as there were differences between the two organisations upon merging.  Delivery of training to up skill  operatives to  become multi skilled and ensure van stocks at appropriate levels so that jobs can be done first time rather than have to make repeat visits,  which should improve customer service. It was queried why this is a three year plan and it was explained this is a complex project.

It was queried what work in East Leeds is contracted out and how much work is done in house. TB explained some of the main ones are specialist work such as; gas works, roofing, asbestos removal (though testing is done in-house), drainage. A question was asked if it would be cheaper to move some of these back in house. TB explained these are often specialist services and it reduces the risk to the Council by sub-contracting them out. An example was given about asbestos and if LBS did the removal then LBS would require a licence to do this which would have cost implications and so it is easier for the Council to contract this work out. In response to the amount of work done in house – this is around 90%.

A question was asked about repairs in multi storey blocks and costs of maintaining them. It was acknowledged that repairs to these types of properties are different to a house for example and they can be more expensive. SB asked about the approach to deal with serious leaks in high rise blocks.

The Chair asked other than software and technology what could be improved in repairs.

TB explained access is key – getting a repair done first time and ensuring that operatives have the right stocks on their van can help with this. Also trying to avoid two trades going to a job would help with performance as often this is where there are issues, and multi skilled operatives can help with this.

Right descriptions for jobs and looking at potentially introducing a repairs handbook so that tenants can do this more accurately when reporting repairs.

TB confirmed that both Mears and the Internal Service Provider compare best practice and performance with each other to ensure continuous improvement.