Agenda and minutes

There were no declarations of interest made at the meeting.

There were no members of the press and public present at the meeting.

- report by Jasmine Speight, Service Quality Champion

Jasmine Speight, Quality Service Champion, presented on the Charter Mark Assessment Report from East Midlands Quality Centre on 2010 Rotherham Ltd. and Retained Housing Services which recommended that they be recognised as meeting the Charter Mark Standard.

The assessment report provided feedback on the compliance against all the 6 elements of Charter Mark criteria and recommendations for areas for continuous improvement.  The report set out the headline results within the body of the main report.

The report concluded that the Services were forward looking and extremely customer orientated.  Recognition had been received from the assessor for the efforts in completing the Charter Mark application which had resulted in only 2 partial compliances identified.

Recommendations for continuous improvements would be subject to improvement plans.  Partial compliance issues raised would be subject to an action plan with identified timescales.

Members asked a range of questions which officers responded to.

Resolved:-  That the assessment report and complaint against elements met be noted.

- report by Jasmine Speight, Service Quality Champion

Jasmine Speight, Quality Service Champion, presented a report detailing the breakdown of complaints received by the Neighbourhoods Programme Area following analysis within the Neighbourhoods Programme Area Annual Customer Care Report 2004/2005.

A total of 209 complaints had been received in the following areas:-

Conduct of Staff

Quality of Service

Absence of Service

Neighbourhood Management

Neighbourhood Enforcement

Details of the complaints received were set out in the report together with examples of improvements that had been implemented as a result.

Members expressed concern at the dip in customer satisfaction and it was reported that ongoing discussions were taking place between Neighbourhood Services and 2010 Rotherham Ltd., on customer focus issues. 

Resolved:-  That the breakdown of complaints analysis be noted.

- report to be presented by Lesley Gaunt, Furnished Homes Team Leader

Lesley Gaunt, Furnished Homes Team Leader, presented a progress report on the furnished Homes Scheme outlining the critical success factors, funding (including income and expenditure), customer satisfaction and operational aspects.

The Scheme was introduced in May, 2004, with a target to establish a one-stop furnishing service and to introduce 100 units by 31^st March, 2005.  In fact, a total of 106 furnished homes were introduced.  A further target was set to introduce a further 100 units during the 2005/06 financial year; 42 units had been introduced as at 12^th August, 2005.

The following points were highlighted:-

-              A Furnished Service Standards leaflet had been developed and approved by the Learning from Tenants Forum Group.

-              5 furniture suppliers were used during the 2004/05 financial year to compare for value for money, quality and service delivery.  The 2005/06 Furnished Homes Scheme had gone out to tender.  Currently 6 companies had completed a pre-tender questionnaire.

-              The method of providing funding for decoration of furnished had changed and had enabled each of the furnished charges to be reduced by at least £9.  The charges now ranged from £14.60 for a 1 bedroom part-furnished to £38.27 for a 3 bedroom fully furnished property.

-              Inventory checks showed that overall customers were caring for and looking after the furniture provided and had pride in their home.

Resolved:-  (1)  That the Furnished Home Scheme be monitored to ensure that the operation of the Scheme has robust systems to improve performance and that the Scheme is transparent and fair.

(2)  That a progress report be submitted after a further 6 months in operation.

- report by Dave Cherry, Housing Solutions Officer

Dave Cherry, Housing Solutions Officer, presented a report identifying the works and qualifications applicable to existing thermal comfort grant aid and set out the amendment necessary to the Council’s Private Sector Housing Assistance Policy in order to accommodate a new scheme for providing additional thermal comfort.

The report also identified a need to provide additional delegated powers to the Head of Service to allow officer approval of energy efficiency grants in accordance with the new scheme operated under the South Yorkshire Housing and Regeneration Partnership Energy Efficiency Grant Scheme (administered by Doncaster MBC on behalf of Sheffield CC).

Qualifying homes were those below the thermal comfort level and occupied by vulnerable home owners over the age of 18 years who were in receipt of a recognised benefit.  The grant was 100% of approved works for qualifying persons unless other source of public funding was available:-

-              Grant could be for funding a shortfall between the cost of a Warm Front Grant Scheme and the amount of money available through that scheme;

-              Full central heating where no central heating existed and included for cost of changing from solid fuel to gas;

-              Replacement boilers, where boilers were beyond economical repair providing that they were over 20 years old including any necessary work to radiators and

-              Cavity wall and loft insulation.

The grant money was paid direct to the contractor who would be on an approved list, one of which was Rotherham based.

The amendment of the existing Private Sector Housing Assistance Policy was necessary in order that the defined vulnerable households could benefit from the new scheme i.e. additional money is available, the age limit was brought down to 18 years and there was no restriction of Council Tax banding.

It was reported that Minute No. B171 of the Cabinet meeting held on 30^th November, 2005 was adopted by the Council meeting held on 18^th January, 2006 relating to the delegation of powers (Minute No. A65 refers).

Resolved:-  That the report be noted.

- verbal report by Executive Director of Neighbourhoods

This item was moved to the private session of the meeting.

- report by Jim McAusland, Interim Chief Executive, 2010 Rotherham Ltd.

Consideration was given to a report by Jim McAusland, Interim Chief Executive 2010 Rotherham Ltd., outlining the progress of the Decent Homes Programme to date including the levels of customer satisfaction and set out the schedule of future Decent Homes work to be undertaken when 2010 was awarded 2 stars by the Audit Commission.

Between February, 2002 and December, 2005, 2,731 properties had been brought up to the Decent Homes standard.  Appendix A submitted broke the properties down into contract area and property numbers listed against the principal contractors. 

Appendix B set out the latest cumulative figures indicating customer satisfaction with the Programme.  Two Customer satisfactory surveys were carried out.  Firstly an exit questionnaire which was handed to tenants by the contracting partners upon completion of the Decent Homes works and secondly a postal questionnaire which was sent by 2010 6 months after completion.  More sophisticated measurement techniques would be employed in the next phase of the Programme and were set out in the invitation to tender for Decent Homes works in 2006-2010.  Key Performance Indicators would be linked to financial incentives ensuring that contractors’ performance was incentivised.

Appendix C focussed on Phase 2, setting out the programme of works to be undertaken when 2010 was awarded 2 stars by the Audit Commission.  The programmed scheduled the works necessary to complete the Decent Homes Programme bringing all Council properties in the Borough up to the required standard by the year 2010.  It consisted of refurbishment work, both internal and external, and security work (doors and windows).

Appendix D detailed the current financial position, broken down into spending by both partners, the direct works, housing, professional fees and the current windows and doors programme.

Members asked a range of questions which included the quality of work by Contractors.  Officers responded to this.   The Executive Director of Neighbourhoods reported that continuous improvements were being made to achieve a high level of satisfaction with the decent homes programme.

The Chairman referred to the KPI monthly performance data sheets and asked that an extra column be provided with appropriate headings to make the report more meaningful.   The Chairman also requested that a minimum font size of 12 was used for future reports.

Resolved:-  (1)  That the progress made to date be noted.

(2)  That the Scrutiny Panel receive a further report in March on the Decent Homes Programme with regular updates as requested by the Chairman of the Panel.

(3)  That the KPI performance data sheets include an extra column with appropriate headings to make the report more meaningful.  

- report by Head of Neighbourhood Services

Helen Nixon, Neighbourhood Standards Anti-Social Behaviour Manager presented a report on the above consultation paper.  This is a proposal that would enable local authorities to ask those bodies managing their housing under Section 27 of the Housing Act 1985 to carry out some, or all, of their functions relating to Anti-Social Behaviour Orders. 

The key issues were reported verbally at the meeting.  It was also reported that a full report was being produced for the Cabinet Member meeting on 23^rd January, 2006 along with a suggested response to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in line with the 1^st February, 2006 deadline.  This would include considerations of 2010 Rotherham Ltd and this Scrutiny Panel.

Members considered the following three questions set out in the consultation  paper :-

(a)  Do you support the proposal to make it possible for local authorities to be able to ask any organisation managing their housing under s.27 of the Housing Act 1985 to also carry out all or some of their ASBO functions on their behalf?

(b)  Do you agree that the Secretary of State should not attach any conditions to an Order made as part of this proposal, and that local authorities should set any conditions when making local arrangements?  If not, what national conditions should be set?

(c)  Do you have any other comments about the proposal, including any practical implications you think it might have?

Members were in support of the proposals at (a) and (b) above and in response to (c) above the following comments were made :-

Ø      The importance of the anti-social behaviour initiative being adequately resourced for it to continue its success, and

Ø      To ensure that the recommendations contained within the Anti-Social Behaviour Client Review Group are acted upon.

Resolved:-  That the proposals in the consultation report be noted and the comments made by this Scrutiny Panel be acknowledged.

- 1^st January – 30^th April, 2006

A copy of the Forward Plan of Key Decisions for the period 1^st January to 30^th April, 2006 was submitted and noted.

- minutes of meetings held on 5^th and 19^th December, 2005

The Panel noted the decisions made under delegated powers by the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods on 5^th and 19^th December, 2005.

- minutes of meeting held on 15^th December, 2005

The minutes of the meeting held on 15^th December, 2005, were noted.

- minutes of meeting held on 9^th December, 2005

The minutes of the meeting held on 9^th December, 2005, were noted.

- minutes of meetings held on 9^th and 21^st December, 2005

The minutes of the meetings held on 9^th and 21^st December, 2005, of the Performance and Scrutiny Overview Committee were noted.

Resolved:-  That, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in those paragraphs indicated below of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

Resolved:-  That, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in those paragraphs indicated below of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

(Exempt under Paragraphs 3 and 8 of the Act – accommodation provided by the Local Authority/expenditure proposed to be incurred by the Local Authority)

The Finance and Accountancy Manager submitted a report, along with a power point presentation, setting out the proposed housing rents and budgets for 2006/2007 based on the Government Housing Subsidy Settlement for the Council’s Housing Revenue Account.

It was proposed that average housing rents be increased by 5% which equated to £48.70 per week for 48 weeks.  The basis of the calculation was the stock held by the Housing Revenue Account on 1^st April, 2005, together with the application of the Formula Rent.

It was proposed that a decision on increases in all fees and charges for additional services e.g. Rothercare and Wardens be deferred pending a report to the Cabinet where a review of the charges would be undertaken.

Other income was also received from garages and district heating.  Charges for garages had not been increased for a number of years and district heating charges had not increased in 2005/06.  However, the increase in fuels costs required that consideration of an increase be made.  A further report was to be submitted to the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods on the level of possible charges that may need to be made to both areas of service.

The Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods would be considering the report at her meeting on 23^rd January, 2006.

Resolved:-  That the proposed increase in Council rents, determined by the application of the formula rents i.e. an average of £48.70 per week for 48 weeks, an average increase of 5% (£2.32) be supported.

(Exempt under Paragraphs 3 and 8 of the Act – accommodation provided by the Local Authority/expenditure proposed to be incurred by the Local Authority)

(Exempt under Paragraph 3 of the Act – accommodation provided by the Council)

Further to Minute Nos. 84 of 17^th November and 93 of 15^th December, 2005, consideration was given to a report by Jim McAusland, Interim Chief Executive 2010 Rotherham Ltd., relating to the above.

The report outlined the work that had been carried out so far.  A report was to be produced on completion of the investigation together with any recommendations for action and subsequent cost implications.  The review was due for completion in February, 2006.

Resolved:-  (1)  That a full investigation be undertaken of all (not just OAP) properties identified as having potential for dangerous occurrences.

(2)  That necessary remedial actions be taken to amend a situation wherever required.

(3)  That a full report on the findings and any further actions recommended be submitted to the March meeting.

(Exempt under Paragraph 3 of the Act – accommodation provided by the Council)

(Exempt under Paragraph 11 of the Act – labour relations)

Bronwen Moss, Scrutiny Adviser, presented the final report produced by the Anti-Social Behaviour Client Scrutiny Review Group who had looked at the real life experiences of anti-social behaviour victims.

The review had taken into account the frontline experience of Council and 2010 officers and set out the weaknesses highlighted by the Indicative ALMO Inspection of December, 2004.

Resolved:-  (1)  That the review be received and its recommendations (set out on pages 3 and 4 with the full recommendations set out on pages 33 and 34 of the Review Report) submitted be supported.

(2)  That the report be forwarded to the Performance and Scrutiny Overview Committee for discussion.

(Exempt under Paragraph 11 of the Act – labour relations)

The Executive Director of Neighbourhoods gave a verbal update on the present position relating to the Audit Commission’s inspection of the Neighbourhood Service.  

Resolved:-  That the present position be noted and the outcome awaited.

(Exempt under Paragraph 3 of the Act – accommodation provided by the Council)