Agenda item

As agreed at the previous meeting, key witnesses had been invited to the Panel to gain an understanding of the key issues and reasons for the delays in re-letting empty properties in Rotherham and consider how performance could be improved against Local Performance Indicator 212 (average re-let times).

 

Kevin Lowry, Chief Executive, 2010 Rotherham Ltd. gave the following presentation:-

 

Empty Homes Review - An end-to-end review of voids had taken place.  They were now known as “empty homes” to emphasise to all that they were homes that should be occupied by tenants

 

-              “Every day counts” - adopted because when dealing with empty homes every day was crucially important particularly in the current economic climate

 

-              we have taken an holistic approach – working with colleagues in all areas of the Council trying to find ways to expedite the process

 

-              cut across teams and organisational boundaries

 

-              create a sustainable solutio

-              balance performance with quality – needs to lead to continual performance and quality.  The quality of a letting was as important as the speed of it

 

-              no issues of “blame” only achieving shared outcomes

 

Performance

-              Performance had improved during the last quarter of 2008/09 - average of 24.5 days

 

-              Significant step forward to that of the position in the first quarter although not achieved the yearly target

 

-              Need to look at the whole picture

 

§               Termination period

§               Selection and offer process

§               Clear out and repair

§               Key management

§               Policy issues

§               Control and accountability

 

-              Indicators need to show whole story – need for new suite to give better picture

§               Number of homes empty but available to let

§               Number of homes empty and unavailable

§               Rent lost through empty homes

§               Total turnaround times

§               Numbers of offers refused with reasons

§               Turnover of properties (sustainability)

§               Lettings to minority groups

§               Satisfaction levels

 

-              Do not always believe what the figures tell you – 31 properties that were awaiting a decision on investment/disinvestment etc. which had been empty for a number of years, should they be re-let tomorrow, would change the average re-let time as all the time they had been empty would be added to the void days

 

So what is our primary objective?

-              Performance?

 

-              Quality?

 

-              Choice?

 

-              Sustainability?

 

-              Cost?

 

-              Good practice?

 

Impacts

-              Performance

§               Cleaning and repair – 2010 was the senior partner when it came to performance on empty homes and, particularly in the last 12 months, for the cleaning out and repairing of properties.  Stringent targets had been set to improve

 

-              Policy options

§               Open bidding – there was an impact because of the bidding system as the 4 main reasons for refusal were not wanting an area, not wanting the property, not wanting to move at all or not willing to view even though they had bid for the property.  This lead to the Key Choices Team and 2010 having to spend a high proportion of time on offers that did not result in a letting

§               Sheltered qualifying criteria – had an impact on re-letting times

 

-              Decisions on asset investment – needs to be taken seriously and carefully and had an effect on the total figures

 

The Way Ahead - all teams in 2010 and the Council involved in the process had been invited to a brainstorming event in March on how the situation could be improved.

 

-              Collective and collaborative working

 

-              Planned improvements – suggested suite of Indicators not simple average re-let times

 

-              One team approach delivering the Empty Home Service within 2010 Rotherham:-

§               Multi-trade impact teams would work on empty properties

§               Repairs completed during the 28 day termination period via Rotherham Connect – the Voids Manager should have absolute responsibility and access to those working on the properties so there was accountability

§               Keys collected by 2010

§               Tenant incentives – Fond Farewell Scheme – look at good practice of other authorities to incentivise a tenant to leave their property in good order

§               Decent Homes work undertaken after a property is let unless required to meet the Empty Property Standard

§               Amalgamate all current action plans relating to the management of the empty homes process

 

-              Review the processes for Choice Based Letting and implement efficiencies

§               Streamline the transfer process

§               2010 to produce the advert information in the format used by Key Choices

 

-              Empty Homes requiring investment/sustainability decisions

§                     All 2010’s referrals to go via the Asset Management Team

§                     Agreed target dates to be provided to 2010 by the Neighbourhood Investment Team on receipt of a referral

§                     Evaluate efficiencies if the £20,000 threshold for investment decisions was raised to £25,000 – this would speed up the decision making process and save time on re-lets

 

-              Empty Homes designated as Sheltered/Aged Persons

§               Review the direct homes procedures (parallel advertising)

§               Review benefits of a penalty for refusing a property

§               Make recommendations for individual properties/complexes wrongly designated as Sheltered/Aged Persons

 

Conclusion

-              Not a completely failing service and evidence of improvement - It was not a completely failing service and there was evidence of improvement – the last quarter Performance Indicator would be upper quartile in comparison with elsewhere but it had to be sustained

 

-              Service can reach better performance and still retain quality and choice - it could reach better performance and still retain quality and choice – by introducing some of the proposed actions better performance would be achieved whilst retaining quality and choice

 

-              Seamless and supportive collaboration needed - critical that all teams work together

 

-              Keep empty homes on the agenda - reinforce just how important this issue was and a constant reminder that when dealing with the process “every day counts”

 

-              “Every day counts”

 

Kevin stated that the report circulated gave far more detail to the standards and some of the impacts.  It was a very broad issue that 2010 was taking very seriously.  There had already been an improvement with the sustainability framework and now needed to maintain that improvement.

 

How effective would a Tenants’ Farewell Scheme be when the largest cause of termination of tenancy was death?

Whilst it was acknowledged that death was the most common reason for termination of a tenancy, such a scheme was used throughout the country.  It was found to save the cost of having to clear a property out, no chasing of the keys and no chasing of rent arrears.  Investigations would take place as to what the impact would be for Rotherham and if felt to be cost effective.

 

Instead of screening an empty house would it be viable to get the repairs carried out by sub-contractors?

Sub-contractors were being used to some extent already.  Some of the contractors working on Decent Homes contracts were given properties to repair to increase capacity, however, their turn round times had not been dramatically quicker than in-house.  There had been instances where properties, due to be returned, had been vandalised by gaining access through the brickwork.  Not all properties were screened – it was a judgement based on the environment and likely length of time a property would be empty.

 

Would it be better to let a property and repair it whilst in situ?

Whatever repairs were possible were carried out whilst the outgoing tenant was still in occupation during the 28 day termination period.  It was very important to work with the incoming tenant and give a guarantee of the work that would be done in occupation.

 

When speaking to tenants and those trying to get a Council house they say they are told to keep bidding on whatever properties might be possible for them but it may be a dangerous situation if start charging a penalty

There was concern that when offers were refused because people did not want to move at that time or even go and view a property, it delayed re-letting for 2/3 weeks.  It may be that some balance could be struck to impress upon people to bid for properties that might be interested in.  There were people bidding who were perhaps not currently resident in Rotherham and did not know the area very well and did not have the financial means to tour the area to look around.  An open ended bidding regime would have an impact.  By having a suite of Performance Indicators it would show the difference between failure to perform and the ones where a factor of allowing people to bid had had an impact.

 

If a property became empty and there was a huge amount of work required why did it have to wait for that person to move out?

There were a range of contributory factors that impacted upon empty homes performance.  1 of the critical things that had impacted on performance was getting them clean in time. 2010 were not trying to blame the Choice Based Lettings regime but the refusal rate did have an effect on figures.  There needed to be an understanding that in allowing choice there would, on occasion, be a time implication.

 

Elected Members did not receive updates when there was a change of Neighbourhood Champions/Neighbourhood Officers

Neighbourhood Champions were expected to be primarily out on the patch and be visible with Neighbourhood Officers not in the office carrying out administrative duties.  It had been recognised that that had not been happening and the number of Service Assistants had been increased and trained so they could answer queries.

 

Was a centralised Voids Team the best approach?  Would a neighbourhood-based approach be more effective?

As far as 2010 was concerned and as indicated in the presentation, the view had been taken that the centralised team had to be enhanced.  Poor performance in repairing properties was 1 of the major problems.  The only way to ensure accountability and sustainability was to actually have that centralised team with the intention of bringing in a multi-disciplinary team.

 

How did that sit with local teams working together?

Only talking about the letting process.  The letting process at the start of the tenancy should come under 1 centralised team but neighbourhood relations would continue at a local level.

 

When did a void not become a void?

A property starts off as an empty home but at what timescale did it change?

If all 31 void properties pending investment were let, the average re-let for last year would increase to 60.  Once a property was let then all the time it had been sat empty was added to the average time despite the fact that 31 homes had been let that otherwise had not been available whilst awaiting a decision on investment.  They were still sat as a total number of empty properties currently unavailable for letting.  By only looking at average re-let times it masked the real picture.

 

The Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods made the following points:-

 

-              The Allocations Policy and Choice Based Lettings were under the Council’s control.  2010 could make suggestions on how to improve them but currently there were no plans to add penalties to those refusing properties

 

-              Local Letting Policies were introduced because of issues of anti-social behaviour and housing younger people in areas of older people accommodation and evidence of trouble in that particular area.  The Housing Solutions Team could request a LLP that overrode everything else.  If a person had Medical Priority and had had issues of anti-social behaviour they would not be allocated a property in that area

 

The Voids Manager made the following points:-

 

How much of the workforce was multi-skilled currently?

There were multi-skilled teams that 2010 were looking to change to impact teams.  There were currently elements of repairs that sat outside the repairs team and work was taking place to bring them into 1 team so the service was streamlined.

 

Re-let times were down before there was a Voids Team but since there had been a Voids Team the numbers had escalated.  Why?

The criteria for voids had changed at the time of the Voids Team being established.  The National Indicator used to include a property that required major works.  The decant procedure had to be re-written because 2010 did not move people out when a new bathroom etc. was fitted.  Due to it being dropped as an Indicator everyone measured differently.  In Sheffield anything over £2,000 was classed as a major work whilst Rotherham classed it as decant.

 

Were void properties prioritised for repair work according to demand for that type of property?

Other than sheltered and aged persons, there was no such thing as low demand but the quick wins were prioritised, then general repair and then major works.  As a property came in the impact team moved it and blitzed it.

 

Voids Performance Recovery Plan made reference to a pilot in Rotherham South to complete all repairs prior to the voids being re-let

It was run as a pilot by a consolidated tea.  At the signing up of a property, repairs were carried out.  It had made quite a big difference rather than having to make appointments to carry out the repairs.

 

Do maintenance staff accompany the inspector who checks the voids on termination?

The Repair Champions carry out the inspections.

 

When were tenants informed their bid had been successful?

As soon as the shortlist was drawn up.  They only receive a copy of the bid if they request 1.

 

-              The brainstorming event held in March had been the first time officers had come together to look at improving the process as a whole.  In the last few months there had been a real drive from all parties to work closely

 

-              Neighbourhood Champions should be the point of contact for Elected Members and Members of the public

 

-              A blanket e-mail had been sent to authorities requesting information for benchmarking purposes

 

-              There were very close links between the Empty Homes Teams and Neighbourhood Teams.  The Empty Homes Teams staff were organised to specific areas so there was local knowledge within that Team

 

-              Within the review it was recommended that 2010 ring an outgoing tenant and arrange to collect keys from them.  Someone from the Voids Team would visit and check the property.  It was hoped to undertake a pre-termination visit and if only minimal repairs required, 2 tradesmen sent to carry out the work

 

-              It had been identified through performance clinics that properties were only advertised when they were ready for letting to move away from people bidding for properties that would not be available for 8-9 weeks

 

-              When void turn round had been running at 66 days, a performance clinic had been held and very stretched targets set.  It had been identified that, whilst performance was poor, the number of properties needed to reduce.  In hindsight, that decision had not had a lot of information behind it.  There were currently over 100 properties with the Decent Homes Team

 

-              Whilst the backlog had been reduced by 9 in 4 months, an extra 89 properties had been let since last year.  The figures did not take account for the rise in terminations that had taken place

 

The Key Choices (Property Shop) staff made the following points:-

 

When a property is advertised whilst the outgoing tenant is still in occupation do you advertise the actual property or the property type?

The advert would include an address and description but no house number.

 

Currently a tenant had 28 days to leave a property.  The bidding system was weekly.  Would it be better to have the 2 tied together?

The 4 week period was process lead.  A property was only advertised for 1 week.  On close of advert, a shortlist was produced of successful applicants who placed an interest and a full list of the first 30 applicants, in earliest date order, was sent to the Voids Team.  The list was then worked down.

 

Did it give any indication on the form that if the customer had not heard within Xdays to consider they had been unsuccessful in their bid?

In dealing with customers on the telephone and in person, advice was given that if they had not heard within 10-14 days to consider themselves unsuccessful.  Letting results were produced and available in the Property Shop, local offices and on the intranet so a customer would be able to see who had been successful (not by name but by their date).  They would be able to use that information as a guideline for the properties they were bidding for.

 

When did a Local Lettings Policy become irrelevant?  Did a Medical Priority or homeless application have an effect?

All vulnerable people were assessed and recommendations made for the type of property most suitable for their needs.  The LLPs were published on the intranet; if a customer did not meet the LLP they would not be considered for the property even if they had Medical Priority or homeless.  Customers were assisted when bidding but if there was an LLP in existence on that property and they did not meet the criteria, they would be discouraged from making a bid.

 

-              Once a customer had been contacted, the verification process did not have to be repeated

 

-              Properties were advertised on a weekly cycle and from that a list of applicants expressing an interest was pulled together.  If the first person on the list refused the property or the verification found that they were not eligible, the second person on the list was made an offer etc.  The property was not re-advertised until all applications had been exhausted

 

-              The whole process was designed to be completed within the 4 week termination period.  It did not affect turn round times at all

 

-              The Assessment Team worked very closely with the Health Authority looking at those discharged from hospital.  The system was in place to assess anyone who was vulnerable or not managing in their own property.  It was a case of raising awareness

 

-              The pre-termination visit would be an exit interview

 

-              As soon as a shortlist was sent through, the verification commenced rather than waiting for letting.  On occasions when the verification process had not started for a couple of months customers could have actually gotten other properties

 

The Chair thanked everyone for their attendance.