Agenda item

 

To consider the report which provides a summary of the findings of the review into how the Council supports new tenants and if this is improving sustainability of tenancies along with the associated action plan.

 

 

Consideration was given to the report which set out the detail of the outcome of the Tenant Scrutiny Panel following a review of how the Council supported new tenants and if this was improving sustainability of tenancies.

 

The Chair welcomed:-

 

• Councillor Sarah Allen, Cabinet Member for Housing.
• James Clark, Assistant Director, Housing
• David Ramsden, Chair of the Tenant Scrutiny Panel
• Sandra Wardle, Housing Options Service Manager

 

to the meeting and invited officers to provide a summary of the findings of the review and the associated action plan to support delivery of the recommendations.

 

Councillor Allen, Cabinet Member for Housing, elaborated on how this review provided an ongoing opportunity for customers to work pro-actively with the Council, to look at various aspects of landlord service delivery from a customer perspective and to develop recommendations and actions for service improvement.

 

The review focused on the support offered by the Council supported by Rotherfed to new tenants with a view to improving the sustainability of tenancies.

 

By way of a powerpoint presentation Sandra Wardle, Housing Options Service Manager, outlined:-

 

• The remit of the Tenant Scrutiny Panel - To consider various aspects of landlord service delivery, from a customer perspective and to develop recommendations and actions for service improvement.
• The methodology for the review.
• Progress of the nine recommendations (Appendix 2 of the report).
• A – Affordability Meeting.
• B – Key Choices Description.
• C – Virtual Viewings Re-evaluation.
• D – Viewings for Vulnerable Tenants.
• E – Welcome Pack.
• F – Welcome Visit Feedback.
• G – Clarity around the Furnished Scheme.
• H – Furniture Scheme Extension.
• I – Measuring Sustainability.

 

A discussion and question and answer session ensured and the following issues were raised and clarified:-

 

·              After a tenancy sign up how long would it take before a tenant received a welcome visit.

 

The service confirmed this was usually within the first two/three months when an Area Housing Officer would meet with new tenant.  An earlier visit could be arranged if this was flagged as part of the tenancy sign up.

 

·              Positively the service were listening to tenants and actions were either complete or on track.  In terms of virtual viewings was this a video download or an officer using a camera.

 

The service confirmed all virtual videos were provided by an external provider with each individual property and filmed externally and internally to show facilities.  The video was then download to a YouTube channel, which was then sent to a perspective tenant to look at with family and friends and any support worker.

 

·              What was the average cost per property for providing virtual viewings and was this cost effective against face-to-face viewings.

 

The service confirmed the provider was paid a fixed sum each month regardless of how many videos were taken.  An exercise was to shortly be undertaken looking at options for virtual viewings and whether to continue with the current provider or to bring this in-house, which could be more expensive. 

 

Virtual viewings served a purpose and often agencies involved with a perspective tenant could view a property as to its suitability without having to go out and visit. It was purely weighing up the advantages/ disadvantages of the various options.

 

The service dealt with approximately 1200 lettings a year so it may not be cost effective to shift to in-person as opposed to virtual viewings.  This was not only about officer time, but there could be an impact on void times and rent loss having to wait to arrange viewings.   Whilst in person viewings were not discounted it was about the financial impact on the Council.

 

·              Was it normal for the Void Team to be still involved following a welcome visit once a tenant had taken up occupancy.

 

Welcome visits were undertaken by the Area Housing Officer where a number of questions would be asked and any property snagging issues identified.  These were then fed back to the Property Team to address.  This meant the Void Team received information to rectify any issues even when a tenant was in place.

 

Every effort was made to achieve a standard and the service were always learning.

 

·              The Welcome Pack contents what did it include and was there an opportunity to include information on signing up for bin collections, bulking items, neighbourhood and Ward newsletters and potentially Rothercard.

 

The Welcome Pack contained a variety of information and included a survey that could be submitted anonymously.  Many new tenants who had been waiting for properties a long time often did not feel they could speak up and complain or raise issues at the Welcome Visit.  The anonymous survey allowed them to provide honest feedback.

 

A copy of the Welcome Pack contents would be circulated to all Improving Places Select Commission Members.

 

·              To what extent were there any complaints about the condition of a property following virtual viewings.

 

Feedback was positive with odd complaints, but nothing any different to any viewings in person.

 

·              Examples of other Local Authorities who used virtual viewings and how quickly this facilitated their void turnaround times and, therefore, sped up their relet process were shared.    Hull City Council used Neighbourhood Champions to provide valid locality information and facilitated video footage often while tenants were still in situ as this provided a sense of what the property looked like.  Prospective tenants then knew what they were bidding for.

 

Service representatives confirmed that each and every property had either been viewed by a tenant via video or in person.  It was not appropriate for a tenant to sign up to a property without them having some information about it.

 

The service had a statutory duty to manage demand and expectations and led to more sustainable tenancies.  Area Housing Officers did provide some local information, but the borough also provided housing for people who were new to the area and work took place with them.

 

·              Was there an opportunity for the property video to be uploaded before the bidding process.  There were occasions where people moved further down the waiting list if a property they had bid on was then turned down.  Perhaps having a more informed decision about whether to bid or not would save time, but in may need more investment in the first place.

 

The service acknowledged that to have a video beforehand could potentially save time.  Unfortunately, some properties were often not in a good condition to show to prospective tenants and work was required to bring the property back up to standard.  The option could not be ruled out and would be explored further, but it was all about re-let times. 

 

To clarify the waiting list positions, potential tenants were allowed to bid and it was only if they refused two offers of accommodation they would move down.  Their position did not change on the housing register after one offer and where a property was not deemed suitable, this did not count as a bid.  Positions were looked at on case-by-case basis.

 

·              Were there occasions where a tenancy was obtained and tenants were disappointed about the condition of walls etc.  

 

The Chair of the review confirmed feedback had been mixed.  Some tenants reported the condition was fair, not as bad as they thought or worse.  Whilst a video did show the property, the actual condition was not seen until viewed in person.

 

Service representatives confirmed not all tenants left properties in good condition.  It made void turnarounds very difficult when plaster needed repairing to all walls.

 

·              What was the process if a property was found to have holes in the walls.

 

Service representatives explained properties were not let with holes in the walls.  It was acknowledged that a video recording could not show the true quality of wall condition.  The service did not redecorate properties so there could be occasions where tenants had wallpapered, stripped off old wallpaper and found the plaster had come off.  Tenants needed to report where repairs were needed and this could be ordered.  Plaster missing from walls could be hazardous.

 

·              Was the Council recompensated where tenants left properties in poor condition.

 

Service representatives confirmed that where tenants owned money or damaged property any claim back would be managed through former tenant arrears.  It was much more difficult to deal with when some tenants left the borough. 

 

It was often difficult to enforce the tenancy agreement, but if a former tenant wanted to rejoin the housing register, they would automatically be barred if they were already known to the Council.  prospective want to join register, be automatically barred if we know about them.  Those tenants who had  unpaid debt, caused damage or used anti-social behaviour were not let a property in the future.

 

·              Some existing tenants had reported rising damp issues and the team had gone in and only plastered half the wall.  This was very hard for tenants to get resolved and were often left weeks which was very distressing for residents.

 

Service representatives confirmed they were aware and hoped the situation was now much approved.  Cabinet had approved the Repairs Fund and Decorating Allowance.  Repairs were about balancing what was appropriate.  Further investigation would take place and feedback would be provided.

·              Did the Welcome Pack detail how tenants could join scrutiny groups and were their local Councillor details included.

 

Service representatives confirmed this information was now all included.

 

·              Did the  Welcome Pack also include a key or a fob to access any communal facilities where this was available.  A recent tenant had confirmed they had not been aware that they could use a neighbourhood centre and had not been given access.  This was a barrier for neighbourhood centre use.

 

Service representatives confirmed that on sign up all were details on how to access any neighbourhood/community facilities were provided.  This was not information for the Welcome Pack as it did not apply to all tenants.  The service apologised if this had not taken place for a tenant and this would be followed up.

 

·              Was there a possibility of using software for the provision of floor plans for tenants.

 

This would be a good idea if this was possible, but access to the software was restricted.  It would still require someone to attend, measure and map the property and then have to be built in the void process.

 

·              Frustrations could occur and an example was provided of where a person did not have online access so was included on autobid, but was still not successful.  Trust had been lost with Key Choices.

 

The service wished to support such situations so asked if details could be passed on so the appropriate support could be provided.

 

·              Did the Council benchmark with other housing providers and following the welcome visits was there any learning which could support sustainability.

 

Service representatives confirmed void times performed on average around thirty-three/thirty-four days and by comparison Sheffield were around one hundred days. 

 

In terms of tenancy sustainment very few tenants were evicted.  This year there had been three and the Council performed well in that it collected all its rent. There was a need to evaluate and reflect more after a six-to-twelve-month period and this was something that would be looked at.

 

As part of the review Rotherham was compared to other authorities and was in the top 25%.

 

·              Potentially an evicted tenant who had intentionally damaged property had moved to sublet with another tenant further up a street.  Should something like this be included in the tenancy agreements.

Service representatives suggested specific information like this should be forward onto relevant officers for investigation.

 

·              There were some reports of tenants encountering ongoing problems with damp and mould despite this being treated and the tenants then redecorating.  Were tenants advised that properties had previously been affected when accepting tenancies.

 

This would be investigated.  The service regularly updated damp proofing and insulation when properties became empty.    Tenants should be advised of a property’s history as a matter of course.

 

·              Following the take up of new tenancies were there any occasions where neighbour properties were asked how tenancies were going.

 

Service representatives confirmed they did not consult with neighbouring residents about a Council tenancy.  Neighbouring residents would only be consulted if they were reporting issues such as anti-social behaviour or things like untidy gardens.

 

·              From experience it might be worth considering speaking to neighbours to resolve early issues.

 

Service representatives would note the suggestion and think about the implications.

 

Resolved:-  (1)  That thanks be forwarded to all those involved in the Tenant Scrutiny Panel for their hard work and support.

 

(2)  That the presentation and the outcome of the Tenant Scrutiny Review, the actions proposed to deal with each recommendation and progress to date be noted.

 

(3)  That a further report detailing progress be presented to Improving Places Select Commission in twelve months’ time.

 

(4)  That an email copy of the Welcome Pack to be circulated to all Members.

 

(5)  That further information be provided on the treatment of damp and mould in affected properties and an update on progress on virtual viewings when this was available.