Agenda item

To consider the draft Housing Repairs and Maintenance Policy which sets out the Council’s approach to delivering a responsive repairs and maintenance service.

The Chair welcomed Councillor Allen, Cabinet Member for Housing, Lynsey Stephenson, Head of Housing Property Services and Wendy Foster, Improvement Manager, Housing Property Services. to the meeting and invited the Cabinet Member for Housing to introduce the report.

The Cabinet Member for Housing explained the Council was committed to delivering high quality, value for money repairs services. The draft Housing Repairs and Maintenance Policy set out the Council’s approach to meeting those aims. The Policy met the needs of the tenants, which was a key aspect because it was their homes that the Council was maintaining and repairing along with meeting the Council’s statutory, regulatory and contractual obligations.

The report also provided an update on the work being undertaken to consider the future of the repairs and maintenance service in the context of new customer regulations.

The Head of Housing Property Services explained she had responsibility for repairs, maintenance, and investment within the Council housing stock. The Housing Repairs and Maintenance Policy was a key document that was required following the implementation of the Regulator of Social Housing’s consumer standards. There was a standard specifically regarding transparency, accountability and influence. This was in response to some of the issues within the housing sector, following the sad passing of baby Awaab, following damp and mould in his home and Grenfell. This standard would enable tenants to hold landlords, such as the Council to account.

The Council needed to be transparent in how it operated and if it did not have a Policy that detailed what the Council would and would not do along with the respective timescales, people would be unable to challenge those. The Council often received challenges on why it would not repair a light bulb or toilet seat and some of the timescales are also challenged. For example, if someone’s boiler broke down there was an expectation that the Council would respond within an hour. Another was if the Council repaired a kitchen cupboard, leading to a colour variation, the tenant may well then ask for the whole kitchen to be replaced and this was not something the Council could do due to the costs involved.

The draft Policy set out the types of repairs that the Council was responsible for and what tenants had responsibility for themselves. It set out how the Council would manage reports, including prioritising more vulnerable tenants. For example, if a tenant had a health condition affecting their chest, they would be more vulnerable to damp and mould in their property, so therefore that should be prioritised over a lower level of mould or someone who did not have a health condition.

The Policy also set out timescales for completion, such as what the Council deemed was an emergency, for a response within 4 hours, what was urgent for a response by the end of the next working day and what is categorised as a non-standard repair for completion within 28 days.

It was noted that the Council did high volumes of repairs, around 6,000 per month, equating to 200 repairs per day, so the Council was unable to class everything as a priority, which was when there was a need to consider the individual circumstances and the impact of that repair. She clarified that the number quoted did not include the capital programme, such as replacing kitchens, bathrooms and roofs etc. It also did not include the Council’s cyclical servicing such as the gas services, fixed wire testing etc. If all of those aspects were included the Council would carry out around 127,000 jobs per annum.

If the Council wished to have a quicker repairs timescale there would be a need to have more repairs operatives on standby to be able to respond to those needs which would then increase the costs of service delivery. It may also lead to elements of the capital programme or elsewhere needing to be sacrificed to accommodate a quicker response time.

The Policy also considered the ‘no access’ procedures. For example, if a tenant wasn’t letting the Council in to address the damp and mould issue they’d reported, which could create health risks. There had been instances where tenants had a water leak and not allowed the Council to fix the leak which had then developed into damp, which meant that the kitchen had needed to be replaced. It was noted, if the tenant had let the Council address that repair when it was reported, it would not have accrued additional costs.

The Head of Housing Property Services explained that the decorating allowance had not been revised since 2005 and noted there had been inflation within that period. It was recommended that this allowance was increased to £50 per room along with increasing the number of rooms. The existing policy looked at habitable rooms and the updated policy would include all rooms within the decoration allowance. She highlighted an error in that section of the report, which should indicate implementation from April 2025 not April 2024.

The policy did not address the Council’s approach to investment and stock improvement, which would be considered in a later Asset Management Strategy. It also did not include compliance, which covered areas such as gas servicing, damp, mould, and condensation. Those were covered in separate policies.

The damp, mould and condensation policy, which was approved around 12 months ago, spoke about inspecting all cases of damp and mould however Awaab’s Law would be introduced imminently, which would bring about specific timescales by which to respond by.

The Council would not know if an instance was serious unless it inspected it, so therefore it was reviewing its triage process, which could be inspection via photographs.

The Policy also considered the future delivery of the repairs and maintenance service. The Council had 2 large contacts which had been extended until March 2027, this did include an option to extend that for a further 3 years. The Council was considering how the service operated. The contracts specified how the Council operated now but consideration would be given to if that needed to change. An engagement programme was beginning to understand what the future service needed to be and what tenants wanted.

The tenants had been consulted on the draft policy, some feedback received was that some people with a vulnerability, or health condition, or disability may not class themselves as vulnerable so some of the language used in the policy had been updated.

The policy was being submitted to Cabinet for approval on 18 November 2024, which provided an opportunity for the Commission to feed into the process and suggest amendments prior to approval.

Concerns were raised regarding the Council’s ability to extend both repairs and maintenance contracts for a further three years. The preference would be to have the viability of the option to bring those services in-house fully investigated prior to extension of the contracts. The Cabinet Member for Housing gave assurance that one of the options being considered was to bring the service back in-house. The Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board (OSMB) expressed the benefits of having in-house services including retaining full control over the service and ease of monitoring that service.

It was noted that the Council was one of the largest housing providers in the country and conducted repairs and maintenance really well. It was noted that sometimes elderly residents had be added to the 28-day repair turnaround during the triage process. It was asked that this was assessed at the point of contact. The 4-hour repairs are usually categorised as emergency repairs and the policy did not indicate what happened if a follow up visit was required.

The Head of Housing Property Services explained the introduction of the Regulator’s consumer standards meant there was a need to prioritise based on vulnerabilities. It was noted that calls were process via staff within the corporate contact centre and everything was scripted. Any particular requirements were usually picked up when it was escalated to the housing team. The Council needed to ensure that this was being addressed at the first point of contact, so work was being undertaken with contact centre to introduce within the script a question that asks if the tenant has a health problem that was being impacted by the repair. Regarding follow up visits for 4-hour repairs, they may be categorised to be followed up within the 28-day timescales. It was noted that further work could be done regarding communication to set expectations regarding any 4-hour repair requests or visits.

The Council had a number of people who used the Rothercare facility and it was queried if the Council would know if they were vulnerable when they contacted for a repair? It was good that the decorating allowance had been increased to £50 and clarification was sought if hallways were included?

The Head of Housing Property Services explained that the four-hour repair would not be for heating breakdown it would cover aspects such as burst pipes or electrical faults so was more to make the property safe and secure. She clarified that a boiler breakdown was classed as an end of next working day repair. The triage process needed to be reviewed to enable prioritisation of the more urgent cases. The housing system shows that a tenant is part of the Rothercare facility, but it was not part of the script for the contact centre. She also clarified that hallways were now being included within the decorating allowance.

The Head of Housing Property Services explained that benchmarking regarding the £50 decorating allowance had been carried out against other local housing providers.  Sheffield offered £20 per wall, so consideration was given to offering the allowance per wall or per room. It was noted that on some occasions, only one wall in a property may have been affected by the repair therefore it was felt that it would be fairer to have the allowance per room.

A suggestion was put forward that Cabinet be asked to consider the slightly higher amount of £75 per room or some form of inflation linked increase. This was because the policy may not be reviewed again for a number of years. The Head of Housing Property Services indicated that the policy would be reviewed on an annual basis under delegated authority. This approach was also being considered for other policy’s such as Damp, Mould and Condensation, and Fire Safety to seek delegated authority to make annual changes to enable the service to react to changes much quicker, for instance when legislation changes. Some members felt that the amount offered was too small.

The Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board noted that if the policy was to be reviewed annually or every two years, then scrutiny needed the opportunity to comment on any proposed revisions. The Head of Housing Property Services explained that in 2021 the Council spent £2,918. The forecast with the increase in allowance would mean the budget would rise to an estimated £50,000 so any further increases would have an impact on that budget. The plan for the delegated authority would be an officer decision record which would be published.

Members noted that officers had carried out a benchmarking exercise when considering the decorating allowance amount and some members felt that it should not be raised above their suggested amount as it was doubling the previous amount available.  The provision of remuneration for the decorating allowance on a sliding scale was also considered. Another suggestion included having one rate if decorating was required for one wall only and if further work was needed, tenants would then qualify for the full decorating allowance.

In response to a query the Head of Housing Property Services explained that tenants could apply for the decorating allowance when the Council had disturbed someone’s decorating, for example if a new socket was installed. The Cabinet Member for Housing explained that it would be very hard to please everyone if the decorating allowance was provided using a sliding scale.  The Head of Housing Property Services explained that a sliding scale had been in place previously however this was controversial and had not been applied consistently.

It was felt that the policy should be fully embedded before any further amendments were made to the decorating policy taking it above the £50 proposed. Opportunities would be available in the future to amend this if needed.

The Head of Housing Property Services explained that in 2023/24 the Council spent £11,931, which was the reason for the forecasted spend had been set at £50,000. The spend for this financial year so far had been £15,750.  More cases of damp and mould were being reported now than previously.

The Head of Housing Property Services indicated that the per wall, per ceiling allowance had not been considered because the per room allocation allows more freedom for tenants. The Council did not have a legal duty to decorate properties when work had been carried out. It was being done to be a good landlord and properties were not decorated during the VOIDs process. Properties were only decorated when a new kitchen or bathroom was installed.

In response the Head of Housing Property Services explained that fencing around a property would be difficult for the Council to maintain and there was no legal duty to provide fencing. If this were to be included it would require further debates to determine what the Council’s investment priorities were.

It was suggested that a separate allowance be considered when decorating was required as a result of damp and mould. The Head of Housing Property Services clarified that the Council did have a Damp, Mould and Condensation Policy in place which was agreed by Cabinet in September 2023. There was a three-stage process to manage reports of mould.

In response the Head of Housing Property Services noted that the Tenant Scrutiny Panel had not raised any concerns regarding the amount put forward for the decorating allowance. The Council was looking at how it could improve the thermal efficiencies of its properties but was also looking at ways to ensure the properties had adequate ventilation.

With there being no further questions, the Chair sought a proposer and seconder for the motion to recommend that Cabinet increase the decorating allowance to £75. This was proposed by Councillor Beck and seconded by Councillor Havard. The motion was the voted upon by those members present with three members voting in favour of the proposed increase, six members voting against the proposed increase and four members abstaining from the vote. This motion to recommend that Cabinet increase the decorating allowance to £75 fell.

Resolved:- That feedback provided on the draft Repairs and Maintenance Policy be received and noted.