Agenda and minutes

1  To highlight reports or appendices which officers have identified as containing exempt information, and where officers consider that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information, for the reasons outlined in the report.

2  To consider whether or not to accept the officers recommendation in respect of the above information.

3  If so, to formally pass the following resolution:-

RESOLVED – That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following parts of the agenda designated as containing exempt information on the grounds that it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the press and public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information, as follows:

   No exempt items have been identified.

None.

To identify items which have been admitted to the agenda by the Chair for consideration.

(The special circumstances shall be specified in the minutes.)

None.

To receive any apologies for absence.

Michael Healey, Maddy Hunter, Rita Ighade, Roderic Morgan.

To confirm as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting held on 18^th January 2019.

The Chair opened the meeting and welcomed the attendees. A round of introductions were made for the benefit of the attending guest and members.

RESOLVED – The minutes of the previous meeting held on 18 January 2019 were passed as a true record.

The Board requested that an update be provided at future meetings around progress and to notify where there may be issues which need resolving with the Board’s support.

JG welcomed the new prospective board members Mary Farish and Stanley Burton to the meeting, and explained that despite attending as observers for this meeting, they are free to take part and ask any questions they wish.

KM began by reminding the board of the recent email campaign discussed in the previous meeting, noting that over one thousand emails had been sent out based on responses from annual home visits and star survey data. KM advised the board that he had received seven responses enquiring about the Tenant Scrutiny Board, elaborating that information about other means of engagement such as HAPs and other tenants’ groups was included in the email.

Attempts had been made to get in touch with all seven respondents following which KM and SI met with four interested individuals to discuss the aims of the TSB and to learn more about why they expressed an interest.

KM advised members that it was felt by both SI and himself, one of the individuals, had a much keener interest in matters in his local area, therefore his details had been passed on to the local Tenant Engagement Officer with a suggestion he be considered as a new HAP member.

Two of the three other attendees were in attendance today and a third tenant had been unable to attend this meeting, but hopes to be able to attend the next meeting. If all three prospective members are approved by the board and invited to join, this would take the total number of members to 12.

SI welcomed the two observers and expressed his hope that they both find the meeting interesting and would join the board as members. JG opened the floor to any questions from the board members.

SBa asked if there will be any future meetings with MF, SBu, and the third individual to assess their suitability for the board. JG responded that he would talk with both attendees following the close of the meeting to discuss their thoughts on the meeting and answer any questions they might have around joining. JG mentioned that the previous system of formal interviews could often be a barrier to potential members as they were put off by the formality, and talking in this manner can often be more beneficial to both parties. KM agreed, and explained to the board that this had influenced the decision to invite the 4 tenants to a group discussion and not separate interviews, as it allowed KM and SI to assess how the individuals engaged in a group setting and were confident putting forward ideas.

JG asked if there had been an update on the issue that was noted with the engagement flyers not displaying correctly when viewed on Twitter. KM responded that he had liaised with the communications team, and that the issue could have been caused by a variety of factors, including the device on which the flyer was viewed. The flyer has not been re-uploaded, however it can be deployed again if  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

The Board requested at their January meeting that a representative from the sheltered housing service (now rebranded as ‘Retirement Life’) attend to provide an overview of the service.

JG introduced Sue Donaldson, Development Manager for Retirement Life, to provide an overview of the Sheltered Housing Service, and its rebranding as ‘Retirement Life’. JG asked if SD might begin with a short history of the service and its development into what it is today. SD explained that the sheltered housing service name has been used since 1970, and used to be made up of separate schemes with wardens living on site and effectively providing around the clock service to the residents. From 2003 the service was funded by Support & People, and in order to receive funding the service had to meet many strict KPIs and report the quarterly performance across all three ALMOs that existed at the time. In 2005 the staff that lived on site were given the legal right to their tenancy, meaning they could still occupy the on-site properties even after their employment had finished, creating an issue that new staff could no longer live in such close proximity to the residents. From this, area teams were implemented, creating a team of staff that worked at the site but did not live there. Most of the staff working for Retirement Life today do not live on site and work regular 8am-4pm hours, removing some of that extra availability granted by living on site. When the three ALMOs were disbanded in 2014 and the services joined under the Leeds City Council, the separate working practices had to be revised to be consistent across the whole city. To do this, best practice was observed across other authorities, however many other sheltered services were disbanded due to the withdrawal of funding support from Support & People. The fact that the Leeds service was eligible for housing benefit meant that the service could remain, but had to review the ways in which best value and outcomes could be achieved. The rebranding to Retirement Life (‘Life’ being an acronym for ‘Living in a friendly environment’) better reflects the aims of the service, and moves away from the less appealing associations of living in a sheltered property.

SD informed the board of the service as it is in the present day, managing approximately 4,000 properties across 122 schemes. SD elaborated that 77 of these schemes have a community centre or complex for residents, and the remaining 45 are dispersed schemes and do not have a community centre. The Retirement Life scheme is provided to all residents for a flat rate of £13.00 per week which is eligible for housing benefit, and for that price residents can choose to be visited by a member off staff from one to five times per week. Residents can also choose to decline any visits, though the service charge remains as they can then opt in to visits at any time. There are many vulnerable people living in Retirement Life properties and staff may spend more or less time with residents depending on their needs, or visit them multiple times per day. Around 75% or residents stay in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

The Board previously resolved a workplan will be provided in all future agenda packs. Members are requested to note the 2018/19 municipal year’s work programme and consider the matters outlined in this report, and raised during the meeting.

JG informed the board that the agenda for the March meeting is still to be finalised but he will be asking for TSB members to propose their interest in becoming chair for the election in April.

JG reminded members that because a review of the LASBT service is still underway, they will be attending in April to report on the recommendations that were made in the TSB review, (of which six were accepted, two partially accepted, and two rejected).

JG confirmed that following discussion, the names of the officers and guests in attendance at TSB meetings shall be added to the front page, as it makes it easier to see at a glance who the guests were for each meeting and saves time searching through the minutes to find names. The contact number for IP at the tenant engagement team shall be provided to members and on the front sheet of the meeting packs, as Lee Ward is no longer responsible for arranging taxis.

JG proposed that ‘any other business’ be added to minutes where anyone has some, adding that it is not included because other similar boards have tended not to include it. JG opened the floor to members who had an opinion on the matter. SI agreed that ‘any other business’ should be added to the agenda.

SI asked if the prospective members of the board could be sent a copy of the reports on LASBT prior to the April meeting, KM responded that they have already been provided with copies of all 4 completed inquires.

JG asked if an up-to-date list could be created of members’ contact details to ensure correct information is held for all members, and requested that anyone who did not want to be on the list tell KM or IP.

KM reminded the board that Mandy Sawyer will be invited to attend the March meeting, and that LASBT will attend in April. KM asked if the May meeting will be cancelled, JG noted that whilst this had been suggested, the May meeting should go ahead but the August meeting should be cancelled instead as members are often away on holiday during August.

Friday 15^th March 2019 at 1:15pm

(Pre meeting for all Board members at 1:00pm)

Friday 15 March at 1:15pm

(Pre-meeting for all board members at 1:00pm)

THE MEETING CLOSED AT 2:45 PM