Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed everyone to the Call In meeting. He informed the Board that due to the sensitive nature of the business to be discussed, there maybe a need for the Board to go into private discussion during the course of the meeting.

In accordance with his powers under Section 100 B (4) (b) of the Local Government Act 1972, the Chair consented to the submission of a late item of business relating to a briefing note on Temporary Accommodation and the Planning Appeal Decision (Agenda Item 7) (Minute 6 refers).

The briefing note was late due to the short timescale involved in producing the document.

To declare any personal / prejudicial interests for the purpose of Section 81 (3) of the Local Government Act 2000 and paragraphs 8 to 12 of the Members Code of Conduct.

The following personal interests were declared:-

• Councillor K Hussain in his capacity as a private sector landlord

(Agenda Item 7) (Minute 6 refers)

• Councillor J Marjoram in his capacity as a private sector landlord

(Agenda Item 7) (Minute 6 refers)

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor J Jarosz and Councillor A Castle who was away on holiday.

To consider a report of the Head of Scrutiny and Member Development.

The Head of Scrutiny and Member Development submitted a report regarding the procedural aspects of the Call-In process.

Members were advised that the options available to the Board in respect of this particular called-in decision were:-

Option 1 – Release the decision for implementation. Having reviewed the decision, the Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods) could decide to release it for implementation.  If this option was chosen, the decision would be released for immediate implementation and the decision could not be called-in again.

Option 2 – Recommend that the decision be reconsidered.  Having reviewed the decision, the Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods) could recommend to the Director of Environment and Neighbourhoods that the decision be reconsidered.  If the Scrutiny Board (Environment and Neighbourhoods) chose this option, a report would be submitted to the Director of Environment and Neighbourhoods within three working days of this meeting.  The Director of Environment and Neighbourhoods would reconsider the decision and would publish the outcome of their deliberations on the delegated decision system. The decision could not be called-in again whether or not it was varied.

RESOLVED – That the report outlining the Call-In procedures be noted.

(Councillor K Hussain and Councillor G Hyde joined the meeting at 10.10am during discussions of the above item)

In accordance with the Scrutiny Procedure Rules, to review the attached delegated decision of the Chief Housing Services Officer in relation to a request to enter into a framework contract with Cascade Homes, Care Solutions and Green Investments (Jump) for the supply and management of temporary accommodation for a period of 12 months commencing in May 2009.

The Head of Scrutiny and Member Development submitted a report, together with relevant background papers, relating to an Officer Delegated Decision (ref: D35386) of the Chief Housing Services Officer as follows:-

“Request to enter into a framework contract with Cascade Homes, Care Solutions and Green Investments (Jump) for the supply and management of temporary accommodation for a period of 12 months, commencing in May 2009 at a cost of £2.6m per annum.”

The decision had been called-in for review by Councillors R Pryke, D Blackburn, N Taggart, P Ewens and J Matthews on the following grounds:-

“Elected members in wards where the proposed contractors house their clients have not been consulted about the effects of this proposed decision”.

Councillor R Pryke attended the meeting to present evidence to the Board and respond to Members’ questions and comments.

The following officers were also in attendance:-

Paul Langford, Chief Housing Officer

Debbie Forward, Supporting People Manager

Bridget Emery, Head of Housing Strategy and Solutions (attended, but did not give evidence)

Rob McCartney, Housing Strategy and Commissioning Manager (attended, but did not give evidence)

The Board then questioned Councillor Pryke and officers at length on the evidence submitted.

Some of the main concerns highlighted by Councillor Pryke were:-

·  the lack of consultation with Elected members in wards where the proposed contractors house their clients

·  experiences of poor quality private rented sector housing and landlord management and the consequential impact on vulnerable clients and the wider communities

·  that the main concentration of homeless households placed in temporary accommodation was in the Nowells and East End Park area, primarily due to the number of cheap rental properties within that area i.e. back to back Type 2 properties

·  reference was made to the Planning Inspectorates Decision dated 10^th March 2009 which dismissed an appeal against service of notices for unauthorised works by an individual linked to Green Investments

·  that in future, more attention needs to be given to the suitability of providers when renewing contracts rather than the most convenient

In addition to the above comments, Councillor Pryke circulated a copy of a document entitled ‘Appeal Decisions – The Planning Inspectorate – 54 Glensdale Street, Burmantofts, Leeds 9 / 55 Glensdale Terrace, Burmantofts, Leeds 9 dated 10^th March 2009’ for the information/comment of the meeting

In explaining the reasons for the decision, officers made the following comments:-

·  the Council had a statutory duty to secure that temporary accommodation was available to homeless households seeking assistance under the homeless legislation and that this provision continues until the homeless household was offered more longer term accommodation

·  the current framework contract with Cascade and Care Solutions expired at the end of the financial year and approval was sought through the Council’s delegated decision process to extend the existing contractual arrangements with the two existing providers and enter into an arrangement with Green Investments (Jump) following the withdrawal of another provider, Safe Haven

·  that approval was sought to extend the contract for a 12 month  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

In accordance with the Scrutiny Procedure Rules, to consider the Board’s formal conclusions and recommendation(s) arising from consideration of the Called–In decision.

Following consideration of evidence presented to them and the questioning of witnesses, the Board passed the following resolution.

RESOLVED –

(a)  That the decision be referred back to the decision maker for reconsideration.

(b)  That the decision maker be requested to reconsider the following specific areas:-

• whether or not appropriate consultation was carried out with the relevant Ward Members

• to consider whether the selected providers of temporary accommodation, subject to this contract, were suitable both in terms of their legal status and their ability to provide suitable accommodation

• to consider and address any concerns in  relation to any of the providers mentioned in the report or selected prior to any new decision being taken

• to ensure that a thorough assessment of all the properties included in this contract had been conducted to ensure their suitability before the contract was reissued

• to ensure that relevant Ward Members were consulted prior to such decisions being taken

• to ensure that Housing, Planning and other affected Directorates liaise closely and exchange information that would facilitate decisions such as these

• to ensure that all providers identify in advance a list of all potential properties, subject to the contract

• to ensure that appropriate investigations were carried into the provider’s legal status and to ensure that professional advice was sought where necessary

• to ensure that appropriate consideration was given to issues of quality as well as cost when selecting providers 

• to ensure that any contract contains sufficient clauses dealing with any breaches of the contract and to ensure that there were appropriate sanctions for non compliance

• to ensure that the contract was monitored and any breaches of agreements were enforced

• to ensure that there was an appropriate mechanism which allows users of such accommodation to complain about the providers

• to ensure there were appropriate mechanisms in place in the future which allow the Directorate to identify contracts that were about to expire so that appropriate steps can be taken to continue to provide the service

• to ensure that all properties were inspected to ensure suitability prior to allocation to users.  Where it was not possible prior to allocation, then to ensure that an inspection was undertaken within 48 hours or on the next working day

(c)  That due to the concerns expressed, the Scrutiny Board recommends that a more general process of awarding contracts was considered by Scrutiny. 

(The meeting concluded at 2.15pm)