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.)

JG raised a question asked during the LASBT enquiry regarding which CCTV cameras on estates are connected to the Middleton centre and which are not. As the responsible officer was unavailable, JG asked if KM could contact the service and ask for a response.

To receive any apologies for absence.

Rita Ighade, Roderic Morgan.

To confirm as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting held on 28^th June 2019

RESOLVED – The minutes of the previous meeting held on 28 June 2019 were passed as a true record.

To receive an update from the Chair on scrutiny activity, not specifically included on this agenda, since the previous Board meeting.

To include draft minutes of the Environment Housing and Communities Scrutiny meeting conducted on 13^th June. (Next meeting 11^th July)

JG told the board members that following the previous discussion about the inclusion of the minutes of the Environment, Housing, and Communities Scrutiny Board, the sections of the minutes relevant to the Tenant Scrutiny Board have been highlighted in the pack.

To receive updates from officers from the intelligence and policy team illustrating on how Housing Leeds are performing to assist the board begin its considerations for its next inquiry.

a)  STAR survey responses - headline findings from the most recent survey covering general needs tenants, high rise and retirement life tenants.

b)  Housing Performance Framework data for 2018/19

Frank Perrins introduced himself and explained the scale and premise of the STAR survey. The survey is undertaken once every two years for the purpose of collecting large-scale benchmarking data from tenants covering many aspects of their homes and the council’s service. The survey was conducted in November 2018 and was sent to roughly one quarter (~16,500) general needs tenants, and half of retirement life tenants (~2,000). Additionally, a survey was sent to all tenants living in a high rise block to give a clearer picture of the opinions of that particular group. The survey used a stratified sample so that all areas and demographics were represented proportionally. Using a confidence interval based on the sample size, it is possible to assess which results are statistically significant.

JG asked how the responses are differentiated if broken down by ward and area, FP answered that an individual’s response may be counted in each breakdown for city, area, and ward level, and this highlights which issues are important to tenants in each geographic area of Leeds. SBa asked if the surveys work on an anonymous or confidential basis, FP replied that they are confidential as it is important to be able to link a response to the areas of Leeds they concern. JG also asked how the confidence interval is calculated, FP answered that it is a consistent calculation based on the Housemark^© recommendation and the same that is used for National surveys.

FP explained that the overall satisfaction scores for the city have remained within the confidence interval and so are not considered significant changes, but do indicate where satisfaction levels are rising and falling. Other trends indicate that older people are generally more satisfied than younger people, and those that self-report they are financially comfortable are more satisfied than those that are struggling. The satisfaction for the BAME community is lower than the general result, but this can be explained by BAME respondents being on average a younger demographic than the wider Leeds population.

Using more calculations, it is possible to gain an understanding of the issues that drive satisfaction, that is, those that have the most impact on the overall satisfaction score. These issues are:

·  Providing an effective and efficient service

·  Repairs and maintenance

·  The overall quality of the home

·  Listening to views and acting upon them 

These results correlate with the tenants’ top priorities which are:

·  Repairs and maintenance

·  Overall quality of the home

·  Neighbourhood as a place to live

·  Dealing with ASB

·  Value for money of rent and service charges

JG queried the wording of ‘rent and service charges’ as it had not been asked on previous surveys, FP replied that it is the same basic question that had been asked before and the wording had just been altered to include service charges.

JG observed that the satisfaction scores for East Leeds does not seem to have improved much despite the recent investigation and improvements recommended by the board. FP confirmed that there have been improvements,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

Lee Ward introduced the housing performance data, beginning with the home decency standard. LW explained there is no government set target for how many homes should meet the standard, however there is a standard that each individual home must meet to be considered decent. As of March 2019 93.19% of homes meet the standard which is higher than the same time last year. Properties will fall in and out of decency based on repairs that are needed throughout the year so the figure will never be at 100%, but as close to that figure as possible is desirable. The figure for March is much higher than other months as there was a drive to get as many homes to meet the standard as possible. JG asked if the data meant that there are roughly 8% of homes that do not meet decency standards at any one time, and LW answered that it does.

The percentage of repairs completed within the timescale is below the current target. The data is run by the performance team, and any discrepancies are queried by Mears or LBS in a reconciliation process. If it can be proved that the contractors’ data is more reliable than the data of the performance team that data is used instead. The figure for March 2019 of 96.35% is the highest it has been since July 2012. JG questioned how the reconciliation process works as it would be in the contractors’ interest to report higher figures, but LW explained it is the contractors who must question the performance team’s data first and there are checks in place to ensure it is not artificially inflated, and the most common issues are simply inputting errors. There has been an increase in the performance of LBS over the last three months coinciding with the introduction of the new repairs logging system, though there is still a backlog of work concerning bricklaying and plastering. JG commented that the board has previously heard from LBS that these jobs are generally the most difficult to get trained staff for.

Responsive repairs data is collected with rolling monthly surveys to customers who had received a repair. The figure for repairs that are right first time is currently 93.77% and above the 90% target, and the satisfaction with responsive repairs completed is 96.83% and the highest in two years. JG questioned why the STAR results and the performance data seemed to be showing opposite results, and LW answered it is mostly down to the perspective of the tenant versus that of the actual data.

Capital works include repairs on roofs or to whole rooms within buildings, and the satisfaction is above target at 93.09%. Gas services completed on time is at 99.87% and there is a legal obligation to complete these works on time otherwise legal action can be enforced to allow access to complete the service. JG recalled that he has previously suggested conducting annual home visits and gas safety checks at the same time where access  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

To discuss the feedback generated from the TSB review meetings/workshops held in May and June at Navigation House.

KM directed the board members to the pack item, which includes two process maps and summary notes of the review sessions previously held, and encouraged anyone with any ideas to add to the plan to let KM know. A meeting will be held with KM, SBa, SBu, and MF as an induction into the wider work of the board for the new members. JG reiterated that the best way to implement the new ways of working is to try them out in the next enquiry, and so it is in the board’s best interests to decide a topic in the coming months.

Confirmation of dates of meetings for the forthcoming year and the future workplan.

KM noted that the dates for all meetings up to April 2020 have been set, and are included as a part of agenda item 8. All meetings are scheduled to be held at the Civic Hall unless they are organised otherwise as part of the new ways of working.

KM will be arranging a meeting between the chair and Rob Goor to discuss out of hours repairs, and Simon Costigan will be attending the September meeting, but as yet there is no set speaker for the October meeting. JG raised that he has spoken with the leader of the council, who is willing to attend a future meeting, and he will arrange accordingly for that to happen at a suitable time.

JW pointed out that due to the delayed rollout of Universal Credit in Leeds, the city is still only open for new applicants and changes to the current system, however everyone is being migrated and as a result the rate of arrears is rising. KM reminded the members this was the topic covered by Paul Harris at a previous board meeting, and that it could be worth inviting him back for an update on Universal Credit in the future.

SB asked what the proposals for the next enquiry are, JG answered that there was a lot of housing data presented at the meeting, and an even clearer idea for topics can be formed after Simon Costigan’s presentation. JG proposed that no matter the area of enquiry, a shorter investigation would be more favourable to implement as many new ways of working as possible, and choosing a topic promptly would favour the board’s ability to carry out more than one enquiry. JW recalled previous years when the board’s membership was larger and able to split into groups to cover two enquiries at once. JG proposed that a shortlist be created by September’s meeting so the options are clearer to members, but that the out-of-hours service might be a promising option on the list. JW asked if members of the Repairs and Investment Group might be available to contribute to the enquiry and be co-opted onto the board.

Please note that the Board will not meet in August

The next meeting will take place at1.00pm Friday 20th September 2019, in Committee rooms 6/7 at the Civic Hall.

The next meeting will take place at the Civic Hall on Friday the 20^th of September, 1pm - 3pm.

THE MEETING CLOSED AT 3:00 PM