Agenda item

Tenant Scrutiny Board Future Report

The Board requested at their February meeting that Housing Leeds’ Head of Neighbourhood Services, be invited to attend to provide an overview of the how the service sees the future of tenant scrutiny.

 

Members are asked to note the update provided and discuss any further comments in respect of this area of work.

Minutes:

JG introduced Mandy Sawyer, Head of Neighbourhood Services who joined the meeting at this point.  JG explained, for the benefit of the newly-appointed members, that there has not been a new investigation this year, which has given the board the opportunity to look over the previous reports and review the work of the TSB and consider the future plans for the board.

 

MS thanked JG for inviting her to speak, and explained that she is keen to discuss the ongoing activities of the board. MS reassured everyone that the housing service are committed to maintaining the board and hearing its views, and that the enquiries made by the board have been helpful when reviewing housing services with relatively few recommendations having been challenged.

MS noted that the TSB in its current form has been established for around five years, and there are still many ways the structure and function of the board can be developed, especially learning from the TPAS events attended by JG, SBa, and JW. MS suggested that other similar boards in other authorities have seen success with formats whereby workshops and forums are conducted with particular customer groups to target their specific opinions, and proposed the idea that smaller, less wide ranging enquiries might be held alongside the larger enquiries to improve the agility of the board, with multiple teams able to hold independent small reviews and feed results back to the larger group.

 

There is still, however a challenge as to how to best engage with the wider tenant voice, as annual home visit data suggests that 8,000 tenants would like to be involved, but that number becomes significantly lower when a tenant is asked if they would like to attend meetings. MS suggested that adopting a workshop format or holding forums with tenants and staff over a number of days might provide evidence for more intensive scrutiny. Engagement could also be further digitalised through online surveys and forums, however this would be more experimental.

 

MS concluded by reiterating that the housing service supports the role and aims of the board, and that through development of the methods of the board their suggestions for improvement can become even more robust.

JG thanked MS for her update, and commented that the TSB are aligned with the Environment and Housing Scrutiny board which also conducts shorter investigations. JG prefers longer investigations as they offer more opportunity for everyone to be involved with the same project, but accepted that during previous investigations the board had divided into smaller groups to cover more topics. JG agreed that smaller investigations would allow the board to be more mobile, and engage with a topic closer to the time it arises. The board could produce a list of topics of investigation and reduce it based on votes from the members, so no member would have to engage with a large project that may not ultimately affect them.

 

SI reiterated his earlier suggested the creation of a presentation to demonstrate the work of the board might better attract younger members. Since younger members would more than likely be in work or seeking work, SI also suggested the provision of training or qualifications similar to TPAS as a part of being a member, as this could then be used as experience on a CV and improve the prospects of members seeking employment. MS agreed that the offer of qualifications has not been trialled before, however it can be pursued through links with colleges and training providers. JG suggested that dedicated training on how to chair a meeting would be beneficial for all members of the board previously, recalling similar training delivered by TPAS attended by some members of the board. MS suggested that a skills audit of the current board members could be undertaken as a future agenda item to identify the members’ skills as well as any areas in which training would be beneficial, as more focussed training could then be targeted.

 

JG commented that the current make-up of the board could still better reflect the wider demographic of Leeds, suggesting the timing and location of the meetings can be a barrier for those considering joining the TSB for those in work. JG said the Civic Hall location can add authenticity to the meetings, but agreed that meeting elsewhere on occasion should be considered by the board.

 

SI disagreed that the TSB meetings had to reflect the other council scrutiny boards, and that their suggestions should also not impact what the TSB choose to investigate. JG responded saying that the comment ‘reflect’ was not wise as the impression given is that TSB copy other Scrutiny boards which isn't the case. The terms of reference of the TSB are similar but that was the way LCC set this up. JG disagreed that the suggestions about future inquiries from the likes of Environment, Housing, and Communities Scrutiny Board played a big part in deciding which service the board investigates, and wherever the suggestions come from are left in no doubt the final decision is made by TSB. Over the past four investigations only one inquiry suggested to the board and taken up was from VITAL which is made up of tenants.

 

SI suggested the formality of the meetings can put off potential members who would much rather be involved at a more local level. SI asked if a pool of interested residents can be created who may be consulted for their concerns on relevant topics, and who might be able to attend more local meetings with less pressure on LCC officers to be on the record and to prepare their statements. JG replied that the HAPs are already a local forum for tenants, but SI continued that the issue is that nobody knows what any of the forums do if they are sent an email, and that there is little up to date information online about the HAPs and other areas of the council owing to the long approval times of minutes.

 

MS agreed that regarding recruitment, the kind of activity that tenants want to be involved with is not recorded on the annual home visit data, but the contact can be followed up and those that express interest can be signposted to the appropriate forums. MS continued that in her opinion, the meeting location feels very formal and does not promote the type of natural discussion that could yield better outcomes, and a more diverse approach to venues and discussion could prove beneficial. MS agreed with SI about the website and its content, and following a review of the repairs pages is also being improved to become more user-friendly, and updated more often.

 

KM reminded the board that the recent round of recruitment where over 1,000 emails that were sent out to interested tenants, only seven responses were received. KM accepted there was the potential for more sophisticated approaches to be utilised to target more specific groups and interests. KM acknowledged members’ views that whilst consulting the senior managers was important for the board to understand a services aims and objectives, the evidence gathering and investigation process could be strengthened by holding conversations with tenants in forums and workshops and encouraging the evidence to come out organically. SBu added that as a new member he perceives the current meeting format as very formal, and a more informal environment could be beneficial.

 

JG asked if MS could produce a report regarding recruitment for the various tenant panels for the May meeting. MS replied that she could produce a report, however she would prefer to work with the Board to jointly develop some proposals for the future development of Tenant Scrutiny work in Leeds. JG asked if the May meeting could be held at Navigation House as a workshop to trial a less formal approach.

 

JG thanked MS for her attendance at the meeting.

Supporting documents: