To receive questions from members of the public who wish to ask a general question in respect of matters within the Council’s area of responsibility or influence.
Subject to the Chair’s discretion, members of the public may ask one question and one supplementary question, which should relate to the original question and answered received.
Minutes:
(1) A member of the public referred to the district heating standard charge across all the schemes and asked why was this charged at the same rate when the schemes had different efficiencies and cost bases.
Councillor Beck advised, for the benefit of those present, that a discussion had taken place on this issue. The Council made a decision some years ago that all the tenants across all the schemes for 1300 households should be charged the same rate. In the past there had been huge discrepancies on the charges people paid and dependent upon location. There were different costs associated with running the schemes, but Council believed it only fair that all people paid the same.
(2) A member of the public referred to his own tenancy agreement and challenged anyone to show him where it stipulated he had to pay more for his heating to subsidise another. He claimed this was cross subsidisation and not included in his tenancy agreement.
Councillor Beck pointed out details about heating would not be included in the tenancy agreement. Rotherham was not a loan stander of charging for district heating and it was unfair for people to having pay different rates of charges depending on where someone lived. The Council had made a significant amount of investment over the past four years across all the schemes which had brought all the charges down as a result. The report on the agenda today proposed to do this. Councillor Beck disagreed with the premise that someone should be charged differently as a result of location.
(3) In a further question the member of the public had noted from the figures he had received that printing and postage costs were no longer in the Council costs. He asked if tenants would no longer receive statements and if they were who was to pay for these.
The Assistant Director of Housing confirmed statements would still be received by tenants. The cost of this would be borne by the Housing Revenue Account.
(4) A member of the public referred to the removal of the £2.00 standing charge, the confusion around it and the refunds on 5p and then 6p, asked how was this worked out and when was this going to be resolved. Over the last four weeks she had placed £95.00 on her prepaid meter for heating, despite not being home much, and was still in debit by £11.50.
Councillor Beck confirmed implementation of the new charges would take place on the 14th December, 2017 pending approval of the report on today’s agenda. Refunds would be backdated to the 1st April, 2017, to the 6.28 p kW level of charge and refunded by cheque. From the 1st to 13th December, 2017, any refunds would be credited back to residents’ meters.
The Assistant Director of Housing explained about the combined effect of the previous charge of 7.09 p/kW with the factored in standing charge, which had since been reduced taking out the staffing and administration costs. This was now 6.28p/kW.
In a supplementary question the member of the public explained how three days ago her meter recorded her in debit of £24. She rang the Council for help with regards to the £10 emergency credit and was told by officers to contact her gas supplier. She sought an explanation as to why officers were unable to help if they were not trained or aware of district heating schemes.
The Assistant Director of Housing noted the particular circumstances and would pick these up outside this meeting. Staff had gone through a learning process following the review and were well aware how the district heating schemes worked.
The member of the public pointed out the district heating schemes had been in for many years and could not understand why staff needed to be trained further.
(5) A member of the public asked, on behalf of a number of residents on the Swinton Fitzwilliam estate, about variances on the kW/hour per house. Some properties were only getting charged 4p kW/hour where some were paying up as high as 16p kW/hour. This was having a big impact on cost house to house and tenant to tenant. Certain tests had been undertaken and costs identified when heating had been placed on for one hour resulting in some tenants paying 34.8p at 4 kW/hour, but if the boiler recorded 12kW this was at a cost of £1.04.
The Assistant Director of Housing confirmed all the meters were the same on the Swinton Fitzwilliam estate and all on the same tariff. The amount the consumer used to heat their home would be recorded on that tariff with no difference in cost.
The Leader clarified that it was how much gas was required to heat a property per hour.
The member of the public pointed out that there was a large difference. Tests had been undertaken on four properties for the heating alone for one hour. For some the heat was pumping through at 4kW/hour and resident charged at 34.8p kW/hour and others £1.04 kW/hour.
Councillor Beck apologised for any confusion. The member of the public was correct he too had seen this on meters, but offered his reassurance that it was not how much anyone was getting charged, but an indication of how hard the boilers were working.
The member of the public disputed the comments and pointed out the meter clearly displayed how much a resident was paying per kW and then the cost. Unfortunately, there were some houses on the estate which were paying more than others to run their heating.
Councillor Beck was aware there had been problems with some properties, but this had been rectified. If the member of the public was aware of other properties experiencing a problem he asked for the details to be shared so this would be investigated.
The member of the public further asked if every individual property on the Swinton Fitzwilliam estate could be checked for their functionality to see what it was costing each property per hour for heating and heating and water. Some were being charged a variable and this matter had been raised as part of the discussions previously.
The Leader confirmed these matters would be picked up if the details of the four addresses, following consultation with the occupiers, could be provided as a starting point.
(6) A member of the public referred to the current pooled system for seventeen districts, some of which were making a loss and some a profit. This pyramid type situation meant some residents were paying more money to subsidise other less efficient systems and he did not see how this was viable or fair.
Councillor Beck disagreed with the premises that people should pay differently because of where they lived. The Council had invested into improving the efficiency across all schemes and this would continue. The cost of district heating would be subject to review annually as part of the budget setting process. If efficiencies were then demonstrated costs may be reduced further.
The member of the public appreciated the Council had implemented the same tariff to simplify the payment processes, but some areas were still being charged more to cover the districts making a loss. This was found to be unfair and the member of the public asked who was paying more, why and over what timeframe.
The Leader further explained the rationale for the basis of the scheme pointing out the three year programme of investment and the process of paying the same tariff for residents which would see costs reduce year on year.
(7) A member of the public further asked about the houses on the Swinton Fitzwilliam Estate that had been identified as having no cavity wall insulation altogether. The disagreements spanning three/four years had resulted in the member of the public personally drilling into one particular property to prove to the Council that there was no cavity wall insulation. He asked if the tenant would be reimbursed or compensated for the costs associated with heating that particular property because of the lack of insulation.
The Assistant Director of Housing confirmed the Council was continuing to improve the thermal imaging of its stock. Some benefits had already been made to properties on the Swinton Fitzwilliam estate and now the weather had got colder it was easier to identify any properties where there were problems with insulation. A programme of works had already commenced to remedy issues going forward.
The member of the public confirmed works had already started on this particular property, but this had been an ongoing battle for four years. He had to prove there was no insulation and that there was a serious issue due to the cost to heat the home per week. He asked if the tenant was to be compensated for the four years of high costs to heat that property through the Council’s error that there had been insulation in the property when clearly there had not.
Unfortunately, there was still a problem with the property and a decision was still awaited from the Council due to the need to lower the footpath due to it being higher than the damp course. Works were now on hold with no guarantee that the remediation would be completed this year. This house remained cold and the tenant was still in a position where she was still having to try and maintain some level of warmth at a high cost for her children.
The Leader confirmed there was no compensation or discretionary scheme. Works would be completed as quickly as they could and the Council was trying to put right any difficulties. The individual circumstances of this case would be picked up separately.
(8) A member of the public, having lived on the Swinton Fitzwilliam estate for eighteen years believed the Council was no further forward with the district heating scheme. Properties on the estate were getting charged at different kW/hour for heating. The tenant’s meter was running at 4kW for heating and hot water and her parents on the same street were running through at 16 kW and she asked for a reason why.
The Leader, having answered a similar question, confirmed this was to do how hard the boilers working at any given time. He could not confirm what this meant for payment and asked that the details be forwarded on.
The member of the public confirmed she had attended a meeting on the estate and passed on relevant details to a Council Officer
The Leader confirmed this would be picked up.
(9) A member of the public suggested that the only way of charging fairly was to give everyone the same pay as you go meters.
Councillor Beck explained that the report brought forward today for all the people on district heating schemes would be to see a 28% reduction in the cost of heating their home which was a significant reduction. The Council acknowledged about the difficulties residents, but had listened and would taking the report forward to make it easier for residents to heat their own homes, particularly on the Swinton Fitzwilliam estate.
The member of the public pointed out that tenants on the Swinton Fitzwilliam estate were the only ones that had meters pay as you go. It would make sense for each district to pay for what they were using with no profit or loss in the same way as other gas suppliers.
(10) Councillor Cooksey asked about the proposed redevelopment of York Road given the high number of privately rented properties in this area and asked would any properties in the development be made available for potential owner occupiers.
The Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment explained the proposal in the brief was in-keeping with the Council’s request for affordable housing so at the most 25% of the properties would be affordable depending on the viability and the remaining being market houses or intermediaries.
In a supplementary question Councillor Cooksey asked what was considered to be affordable housing.
The Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment explained this was to do with affordable to rent and restricted through Government legislation. There were other combinations including intermediate properties which were partially rented and partially owned.