Minutes:
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 has previously been an issue.
The average re-let time falls outside of the target of 30 days at 34.43 days, but this time has decreased over the year. JG questioned if the letting time was related to the decency of properties, and LW replied it could potentially be, but in many of the longer re-let cases there are situations which require a visit from the occupational therapist and adaptations made to the property which can take longer to install. The target is for all homes to take no more than 20 days with the contractor plus an additional 10 days to re-let. In some circumstances, such as capital works or for squatters taking occupancy in the property, the time taken can be deducted from the overall let time, however LW insisted that the conditions are strict for what is deductible and situations where time is deducted relatively rare.
The number of mutual exchanges has dropped compared to previous years, which LW explained is because there is no longer an incentive scheme to exchange properties. JG asked if there is an incentive to encourage single occupants to move to single-bed properties, and LW responded that this would be encouraged by the housing offices.
The target for completing AHVs was reached, and the figures for satisfaction with ASB services have been consistently higher than for all of the previous year. KM added that LASBT surveys are only conducted on closed cases, and JG questioned if that includes cases. KM explained it was his understanding that only those victims involved in cases that were referred on to LASBT would be surveyed.
The complaints responded to within the timescale remains an area of improvement, as does the number of calls answered at the contact centre. JG asked whether the disparity between the total number of calls and calls answered meant that those people did not get their call answered, LW replied that it did, and the issue might be linked to staffing levels or the sheer volume of calls. Some people may also become frustrated with long wait times and hang up before getting through, which SB and PM agreed is a fairly common issue. JG noted that he is aware there is a high turnover of staff at the contact centre. LW agreed that a combination of staff leaving and moving to other positions can contribute to the high turnover, but this is not just a Housing issue but for all council services. SBu noted there are times when reporting a repair to the housing office has been the most efficient method of reporting, and though SBa agreed, she pointed out that it is not the role of housing officers to report repairs and can detract from their other duties.
JG asked LW if there was any data on the number of repairs that subsequently needed further attention in the 90 days following the repair, as it was his understanding that in these instances the tenant was advised they should ring Mears direct and not report it again to LCC. LW said he didn’t have any figures has Mears haven’t been asked for them. JG felt this was something that LCC should be asking for especially when this same question is put to the councils own in house repair service, and if LCC don’t know this data how then can they be sure Mears aren’t charging them twice for the same job? LW offered to find out if the data for repeat callouts can be collected.
JG thanked LW for his presentation.