Agenda item

To consider the report which provides Improving Places Select Commission with a summary of the findings of the review and the Council’s response to each of the actions included in the Tenants Scrutiny Review Action Plan.

The Chair explained this item was to highlight the work that the Tenant Scrutiny Panel had carried out on Voids and the lettable standards of those Voids.  This was work that the Tenant Scrutiny Panel felt they could add value to, and he expressed his thanks to the work of the Panel. He then welcomed Lynsey Stephenson, Head of Housing Property Service to the meeting.

The Head of Housing Property Service echoed her thanks to the Tenant Scrutiny Panel for the comprehensive review which focused on the lettable standards involved with the termination and re-letting process. The Panel looked at benchmarking with other housing providers to assess their lettable standards. They conducted property inspections before and after work to evaluate the conditions left by outgoing tenants and the state of properties upon completion. Consultations were held with various staff members, including voids supervisors and cleaning staff. Additionally, communications with tenants were also reviewed during the review, including termination letters, and termination forms. Feedback from tenants, both outgoing and incoming, was gathered to inform the formulation of eleven recommendations.

The Housing Property Service had considered each recommendation carefully, and an action plan was developed detailing how to progress them. While some recommendations had not been pursued due to contractual limitations or existing practices, efforts had been made to align with legislative changes and ensure properties met necessary standards, including the installation of carbon monoxide and smoke alarms.

It was highlighted that certain examples, such as those concerning gas testing turnaround times, were discussed. It was noted that reducing such turnaround times might require additional resources, such as more appointment slots and standby staff, which could potentially impact other aspects of the service and further investigation was needed in those areas. Furthermore, observations were made regarding items not currently included in the lettable standard, such as surfing curtain battens, clothes posts, and fencing, which are practiced by other housing providers. While acknowledging these observations, it was emphasised that the tenancy agreement clearly outlines tenant responsibilities for such items. It was clarified that while these considerations are not discounted, implementing them may incur additional costs that could affect other service elements. Each recommendation was addressed with various actions, some already completed and closed, others yet to be progressed, and some currently under investigation.

The Chair expressed gratitude for the service work and raised concerns about costs, emphasising that any extensions would impact the housing revenue account, also he sought clarification regarding smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms.

The Head of Housing Property Service explained that legislation mandates carbon monoxide alarms and highlighted access issues, such as with fire doors, affecting existing tenants. She described efforts to replace fire doors and emphasised the importance of maintaining proper fire protection levels, also she mentioned that in December they successfully took someone to court because they had been persistently not allowing access to replace the fire door. She also mentioned conducting fixed wire tests and installing carbon monoxide and smoke detectors during void processes to ensure compliance. The Head of Housing Property Service acknowledged slight variations from the void’s standard but stressed agreement with contractors on these practices. Additionally, she discussed the need to address loft insulation to meet energy efficiency targets, aiming to minimise disruption for tenants during property turnover. Additionally, she highlighted the adherence to recommendations from the Scrutiny Panel, suggesting the potential for expediting property turnover. They considered delaying kitchen renovations and replacing only if necessary, prioritising minimal disruption for tenants. As a result, they aim to carry out such renovations during void periods.

The Chair expressed concerns regarding decorating allowances, noting that it is not often highlighted. He recalled a time when decorating allowances were more common, acknowledging that times have changed. However, he suggested that there's still room for discretion in certain circumstances, especially with the assistance of housing managers. Also, he pointed out that such allowances would incur costs with each letting, potentially affecting overall expenses.

Councillor McNeely highlighted a few important things. Firstly, when visiting somebody who was going to vacate you usually witnessed a fully furnished house and you found some of the faults once the furniture had been removed so she suggested getting a double check procedure. Secondly, she acknowledged that some properties may remain void for longer periods depending on the amount of work that needed to be done. She also recognised that certain properties were being kept vacant for emergency purposes. However, she expressed concern about residents' perceptions when they saw properties unoccupied for extended periods. She suggested establishing a system to inform surrounding residents of the reason for a property's vacancy, particularly when kept empty for emergency purposes.

The Head of Housing Property Service responded that we do not conduct pre-tenant termination inspections for all types of properties. She pointed out that they aimed to do so, but they had faced challenges in doing it consistently due to resource constraints. However, she agreed that these inspections were crucial, especially when tenants were transferring to another council property and their current residence required significant repairs. She said that ideally, the Council would stop their transfer until the damages were rectified, but unfortunately, resource limitations hindered the service’s ability to conduct pre-termination inspections universally. Instead, properties got inspected when they become void, identifying any damages caused by the tenant and levying charges accordingly.

Regarding long-term vacant properties the Head of Housing Property Service noted that, ideally, the Council should not have any, as it maintained a temporary accommodation portfolio. It was pointed out that these properties should only remain vacant for a short period, typically days or weeks, before accommodating homeless applicants. However, she highlighted that, sometimes properties could remain empty for extended periods due to legal processes, such as when tenants entered residential care or when there were court arrangements confirming permanent residency in such care. During those periods, neighbours and residents may perceive the property as abandoned, leading to enquiries or concerns. However, she noted that such communications must be handled sensitively, adhering to GDPR regulations and maintaining privacy regarding tenants' situations.

Councillor Bennett-Sylvester highlighted a common issue where properties remain vacant for extended periods due to safety concerns or other community requirements. He cited an example in Dalton where a property remained empty for 12 months under similar circumstances. Councillor Bennett-Sylvester emphasised the importance of communication with residents, noting that enquiries often arose when properties remain empty for extended periods. He suggested using estate agent-type boards to inform residents when a property would become available for letting, thus improving communication and transparency. He stressed the need for simple and clear communication to address concerns about vacant properties.

He also highlighted some common issues found through casework, such as neglected gardens and missing bins upon moving into new properties. These issues seem to arise particularly in rapid rehousing scenarios, prompting the need for follow-up and system improvements. Additionally, he mentioned concerns about the effectiveness of decorating vouchers and their potential impact on certain neighbourhoods. He questioned whether specific properties facing difficulty in being let could receive additional assistance such as a decorating voucher, as part of the overall letting policy. These thoughts raised further considerations for policy adjustments and support measures.

The Head of Housing Property Service explained that sometimes properties required immediate attention, so overgrown gardens and missing bins were addressed to ensure the premises was presentable for new tenants. However, she noted that if the property remained vacant for more than 30 days, especially during the summer when grass grew quickly it was hard to maintain that standard. She also highlighted that occasionally, neighbours may take advantage of the situation and remove bins, although this did not happen frequently. Those issues usually got discovered during inspections with incoming tenants, prompting them to order replacements as needed. Regarding decorating vouchers and hard-to-let properties, the Head of Housing Property Service pointed out that the Council took specific measures for exceptionally challenging properties. After exhausting the shortlist without success and deeming them unsuitable, the Council may furnish and decorate the properties to make them more appealing to potential tenants. However, those actions were taken on a case-by-case basis to avoid setting unfair precedents or leaving properties vacant for extended periods.

Councillor Collingham highlighted the issue with decoration and pointed out a case in his ward where a resident had recently fitted new curtains and carpets, but unfortunately passed away soon after. He questioned whether it was part of the housing policy that newly fitted carpets or curtains were removed, when a property changed tenants, expressing concern about the potential waste.

The Head of Housing Property Service responded, explaining that removing carpets and curtains were indeed part of their standard policy outlined in the lettable standard. However, she acknowledged the need to consider exceptional circumstances, suggesting that they could speak to the incoming tenant in such cases. She noted past challenges where leaving the carpet led to complications if the new tenant declined it, resulting in additional costs. She explained the pricing structure with contractors and the necessity to remove carpets even if they are in good condition to avoid such issues. She also mentioned concerns about pests in the carpet, stating that while they do not typically fumigate as part of the removal process, they ensured proper disposal.

The Chair responded, acknowledging the complexities involved in the removal of items like curtains and carpets, considering both environmental impact and potential hygiene issues. He expressed appreciation for bringing forward the recommendations from the tenant scrutiny panel, noting that no additional recommendations were identified. He confirmed agreement with the proposed actions and highlighted the standard procedure of reviewing progress in 12 months' time. The Chair concluded by expressing gratitude and readiness to proceed with the next steps.

Resolved:

1.     That Improving Places Select Commission noted the outcome of the Tenant Scrutiny Review, the actions proposed to deal with each recommendation and progress made to date.

2.     Agreed that a further report detailing progress be presented to Improving Places Select Commission in 12 months.