Further to its previous discussions of the Social Housing White Paper and the Tenant Satisfaction Survey, attached is a report on the progress made towards being ready for the Social Housing White Paper and an update on the progress being made to actions following the Tenant Satisfaction Survey.

Bill Graves, Landlord Services Manager, will be available to present the report.

The Panel is asked to consider the report and raise any issues for possible recommendations to make to Cabinet when the write up of its findings on Tenant Engagement is completed.

Bill Graves, Landlord Services Manager, presented to the Panel the report on the progress of the Council regarding the progress of its response to the Tenant Satisfaction Survey and readiness for the Social Housing White Paper. 

Actions to improve the repairs service were on track. An SMS reminder and notification system was expected to go live in July, and a live dashboard to track underperformance in different areas had been designed and scoped, with an expected go-live of November. Dynamic Resource Scheduling was being used for half of operatives, with full take up expected by July. Just in time delivery was now in place through a contract with Grafton. A solution to enable follow-up visits to be booked whilst the operative was on-site was also being used by half of operatives with full take-up expected by July. The reporting, viewing and tracking portal for tenant repairs was slightly delayed because of changes made in the background by Microsoft, with expectation it would be running by October. Much progress had been made on damp and mould re-inspection visits, with all cases within the last two years checked on and prioritisation of cases occurring when reported. EDI and customer care training had been planned and was being rolled out to all staff. ODS had appointed a project manager to develop a Customer Service Strategy.

Following this, members asked about the certainty of estimated time frames, particularly in relation to QL-related issues. The time frames provided were felt to be robust, but the work was reliant on a small number of individuals within the Council, making unexpected work for them more likely to cause delays. The Council’s awareness of mould and ventilation issues for highly efficient houses was queried. It was confirmed that this issue formed part of the consideration of which interventions to use for the Council’s retrofitting programme.

To address feedback by tenants that the quality of the home was a concern for a number the Council was undertaking a long-term £51m improvement programme. A stock condition survey would be undertaken to identify works required, with the contractor being appointed by April 2022. The Great Estates work, with a budget of £1.1m would also continue.

Interest was expressed by Councillors in being able to contribute ideas to the Great Estates programme, but many felt they were being held back by a lack of knowledge how the programme worked. It was AGREED that this topic would be referred to Democratic Services to be added to the list of topics for all-member briefings post-election. The briefing would be based on the recent report submitted to the Leaders meeting on the process for Great Estates sign-off.

With a view to readiness for the implementation of the Social Housing white paper the Council was in the process of recruiting an engagement team to deliver the engagement plan. The recruitment was expected to be complete by June, subject to budget sign-off. Better data capture and a customer portal to enable better digital access were expected to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36

The Housing and Homelessness Panel has requested a report giving an update on the results of, learning from and response to the Tenant Satisfaction Survey as part of its investigation into Tenant Engagement.

Bill Graves, Landlord Services Manager, will be available to present the report.

The Panel is asked to consider the report and raise any issues for possible recommendations to make to Cabinet when the write up of its findings on Tenant Engagement is completed.

Bill Graves, Landlord Services Manager, presented the report on the results of the Tenant Satisfaction Survey and the Council’s response to the Panel.

The Tenant Satisfaction Survey was the first undertaken by the Council since 2015. Given the period since the previous survey and the low response-rate to the previous survey the Council had undertaken a census of all tenant and leaseholders. Normally, the Council would then compare its performance with peers, but few comparators had undertaken surveys since Covid, with those who had seeing significant variability in satisfaction.  The Council’s own reduction to services and repairs was likely to have acted as a dampner to satisfaction.

In headline, 85% of respondees were satisfied with the Council’s service. Below that, however, there were a number of issues, including

-       satisfaction with the Council as a landlord

-       satisfaction with the standard of the home

-       tenant’s views listened and acted upon

-       satisfaction with the outcomes of anti-social behaviour

In addition to the numerical data provided, over 1700 comments had been provided as part of the survey giving a rich seam of information for the Council to understand the concerns and issues of its tenants and leaseholders. Members of the Housing team were in the process of following up comments made by those who gave permission to do so to discuss and seek to understand more. This information would continue to shape the improvement plans developed.   

The key area for improving satisfaction related to the repairs service, which was the primary source of both satisfaction and dissatisfaction. The Council had been working with its repairs provider, ODS, to improve communications with customers around repairs, and undertaking immediate post-job satisfaction surveys. Those tenants providing a score less than a seven out of ten would get a follow up call to understand more about how the service could have been improved, with the feedback for individual operatives tracked to understand and improve issues detracting from their level of service. This survey was being developed with the input of both the Tenant Satisfaction Team and the Tenant Ambassadors. Technological systems and new supply chain approaches were enabling greater efficiency of existing staff to undertake work. The new portal, through the QL system, would enable tenants to report, view and track repairs. A proactive schedule of revisiting homes which had reported damp and mould to check on the adequacy of the previous work had already begun. 

Results showing dissatisfaction with the quality of homes were of a deep disappointment to the Council and at present it was unclear what was driving the dissatisfaction. All Council homes met the Decent Homes standard. Understanding this was a priority for the Council. In the meantime, the Council was planning to invest £51m over the course of the forthcoming Medium Term Financial Plan, with a further £8.7m to improve energy efficiency. The extension in the Social Housing White Paper of responsibility for improving the local area also meant further investment in the Great Estates programme.

Communication between  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28

Cabinet will, at its meeting on 10 November 2021, consider a report on Discretionary Housing Payment policy. The Panel is asked to consider the report and AGREE any recommendations it wishes to make to Cabinet arising from it.

Councillor Shaista Aziz, Cabinet Member for Inclusive Communities, and James Pickering, Welfare Reform Manager will be available to present the report.

**NB This report is to follow and will be issued as a supplement.**

Councillor Shaista Aziz, Cabinet Member for Inclusive Communities presented the report to the Panel. Key issues that the report dealt with where historical demand for DHP, and the anticipated increase in demand for DHP payments at a time of financial challenge for the Council. In the previous year the Council had exceeded the grant support from government by 22%, or £101k. Spending beyond the government’s grant is also expected in the immediate future, particularly as central government had reduced the level of its grant support. A series of mitigations had been put in place to minimise the impact on the Council’s general budget. The pandemic had hit DHP recipients particularly hard, with many having few alternative options other than this funding. Families subject to the benefit cap were particularly reliant on this support (66% of Council DHP spending went to this group), particularly lone parents with more than two children whose ability to work sufficient hours to qualify for alternative benefits was seriously impeded by their childcare situation. Changes to Universal Credit announced in the government’s Budget would help those able to work, but would be of very little benefit to those not working or working few hours.

 A vital part of the Council’s approach to the DHP process was the allocation of case workers to DHP recipients to work with them to find solutions to their specific challenges. This approach had repeatedly shown good outcomes for individuals; for example, even with the pandemic 31 recipients had made their way into work in the previous financial year. James Pickering, Welfare Reform Manager, underlined the importance of this in light of the fluctuating income from government. Finding long-term solutions was the only viable path to take.

The Panel explored the possible mitigations put in place by the Council to mitigate the consequences of spending on DHP beyond the government grant and found itself to be in strong support of all the existing and proposed suggestions.

One issue raised was that it unclear to members whether the portion of DHP spend coming from the HRA (ie spending on DHP for Council tenants above the government grant) was specifically budgeted for, given that spending might be anticipated to be not inconsequential, £50k or so. It was the view of the Panel that providing a dedicated line in the budget is important in providing transparency, particularly to Council tenants, whose rental payments underpin the HRA.

Other issues raised by the Panel included the ‘trap’ effect of the DHP and the length of time some recipients stay on it, eligibility criteria and other forms of support.

It was AGREED to make the following recommendation to Cabinet:

1) That the Council includes a line within the HRA section of its proposed 2022/23 budget for DHP expenditure beyond the government grant.

The Scrutiny Committee agreed earlier in the year the topics it wished to commission reports on. One of these reports was on the relationship between the Council’s Housing function and Carbon Reduction. Malcolm Peek, Property Services Manager, will be presenting this report.

Also invited to this meeting to contribute are Councillor Diko Blackings, Cabinet Member for Affordable Housing, Housing Security and Housing the Homeless, CouncillorMike Rowley, Cabinet Member for Citizen Focused Services, Stephen Clarke, Head of Housing. Stephen Gabriel, newly appointed Executive Director of Communities and People will be attending to watch.

The Panel is asked to consider the report, and NOTE it, having AGREED any necessary recommendations to Cabinet arising from it.

**NB This report is to follow and will be issued as a supplement.**

Malcolm Peek, Property Services Manager, presented a Panel-requested report on Housing and the Low Carbon Agenda.

The Council had a target of ensuring 95% of its homes were rated no lower than a C on EPC ratings by 2030. Some government funding was being used to support this, with Local Authority Delivery and Social Housing Decarbonisation Funds being accessed as available. The bulk of the work was progressing, however, without government funding and a budget of £7m was available to 2030 to cover the work required to bring approximately 2500 Council-owned homes up to a C rating. Current focus was on procuring external expert advice on the works required, which would then be profiled into a programme. Surveys were anticipated to be completed by March 2022. Typical solutions would include lighting solutions, internal and external insulation, draft-proofing, solar and installation of heat pumps.

In response to the presentation the Panel raised a number of issues. One key issue discussed was that of engagement with residents, particularly for those who struggle with digital access. Given the potentially radical changes to some tenants’ homes Housing Services were keen to run a full and accessible engagement programme, which had already been planned and budgeted. This would be in addition to the existing work of the Council’s staff dedicated to advising tenants on possible measures to address fuel poverty. The issue of fuel poverty was an important consideration in the approach to housing retrofitting, with a focus on fabric first changes to raise energy efficiency without transferring from gas to electric heating, thereby avoiding the significant increases in fuel costs. Team members on the project were mindful of the complexity involved in ensuring different measures worked together and did not raise other issues such as damp. It was noted by the Panel that changes to properties could have a fundamental impact on the way that tenants live and enjoy their properties, as well as there being a wide variety of possible offerings around finishings, which it would want to see tenants involved with. Tenant involvement in the process would be critical, at both the level of individual homes and representative levels on wider issues. The level of consultation required and the complexity of the works meant it was very difficult to know at the current stage what proportion of the properties improved would be raised to EPC levels beyond a C grading.

The possibility of additional central government funding was explored by the Panel. It was hoped that there would indeed be further central government funding. However, such funding often came with tight criteria in terms of the works and timeframes involved. The Council would be proactive in looking for opportunities to access such funding but its specificity meant that external funding would not the main determinant of the Council’s plans as it would be unlikely to meet the Council’s own targets for energy efficiency.

Disruption for tenants during works was an issue of concern for the Panel. Much of the work, such  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13

Attached is a Housing Performance Update report for Q1. The Panel is asked to consider the report, and NOTE it, having AGREED any recommendations to Cabinet arising from it.

Councillor Diko Blackings, Cabinet Member for Affordable Housing, Housing Security and Housing the Homeless, CouncillorMike Rowley, Cabinet Member for Citizen Focused Services, and Richard Wood, Strategy and Service Development Manager have been invited to present this item.

Richard Wood, Strategy and Service Development Manager, presented a Housing Performance update report to the Panel, taking in the activity of the Housing service area, but also Housing-related service areas.

For the Council’s activities around rough sleeping and homelessness the challenging situation of undertaking its work in a new way, through the pandemic and the ‘everyone in’ policy was noted. Housing’s current focus was on getting those people who had been taken off the streets moved on into longer-term accommodation. The pandemic had brought increased presentations of people as homeless, but with changes such as the end of the eviction ban, the furlough scheme and the recommencement of evictions that number was liable to remain elevated. Despite the challenges, however, securing accommodation was proving successful, with 252 having been moved on to date. Since the publication of the report Canterbury House had been vacated, and attention was being turned to those housed at the YHA. The Council’s work was being supported by a successful bid for RSI funding from central government, which would partially be used for a social lettings pilot to trial enabling access to private lettings from former rough sleepers. Overall, number of rough sleepers was reducing, with 24 recorded at the last count in Q1, down from 62 in 19-20. Other KPIs about temporary accommodation and successful outcomes from homelessness prevention interventions were also being met.

Traditionally the Council’s affordable housing targets were reported on annually. However, owing to the long term work needed to deliver housing developments it was deemed more appropriate to have a four year target instead to drive performance, set at 1200 affordable homes. In the first quarter 49 affordable homes had been delivered, compared to 123 in the entire year prior.

The main focus around the Council’s own housing stock in terms of KPIs was over decarbonisation and retrofitting, with the aim that fewer than 46% of homes would be rated below an EPC rating of C for 21-22. Compared to a baseline of 54%. This is being supported by financial investment from the council, alongside bidding for grant funding from central government, a successful bid for LAD1B fund means work can get underway on 240 properties with the worst performing properties being targeted first.

In response to the presentation the Panel raised a number of questions. Assurances on the steps being taken to ensure harder-to-house rough sleepers were sought as the ‘everyone in’ policy was starting to be wound down. This area was recognised by officers to be a challenge, but the ambition was to make every person leaving temporary accommodation at the YHA an offer of suitable accommodation, which would be supported by funding through both the Next Steps accommodation programme, and the Rough Sleeping accommodation programme. This funding could be used not only to provide accommodation itself, but support to the individuals in their accommodation. Floyds Row would also, once repurposed, be able to temporarily house and support a number of individuals.

Challenge was provided by one of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5

At Cabinet on 10 March the attached report on the Allocation of Homelessness Prevention Funding will be considered. The Panel is asked to consider the report and agree any recommendations to Cabinet it deems appropriate.

Councillor Mike Rowley, Cabinet Member for Affordable Housing, Nerys Parry, Housing Strategy and Needs Manager, and Paul Wilding, Rough Sleeping and Single Homeless Manager have been invited to present this item.

Paul Wilding, Rough Sleeping and Single Homeless Manager, presented the report on the Allocation of Homelessness Prevention Funding.

With Covid, the year had been very challenging, but all partners had worked well to meet those challenges. In particular, accommodation was found for all rough sleepers seeking it by July under the ‘everyone in’ policy. Further, Covid required a refocusing of the contract with St Mungos to deliver services outside the setting of Floyds Row. This, St Mungos had been very willing to engage with.

To ensure sufficient space, 152 bed spaces would be commissioned by the Council, on top of the 79 allocated through pooled budgets for Oxford-connected clients.

Largely, the proposals were continuations of existing arrangements, with a view to bigger changes being implemented when county-wide commissioning arrangements were implemented in 2022/23.

The Panel addressed the take-up of vaccines amongst the rough sleeping population as a way of gauging the threat that services would have to cease at the YHA and Canterbury House prior to being able to use facilities at Floyds Row. It was confirmed that take-up amongst rough sleepers was good – the Council had made special efforts to promote the vaccine’s availability – and that although a risk, the chances of not being able to use Floyds Row at all were low.

The Panel also raised questions about the proposed changes to daycare services at O’Hanlon House and sought reassurances that the slimmer service would remain relevant to the needs of its users. The changes made were reported to be in response to lower demand because so many rough sleepers were presently accommodated, disruption to users of O’Hanlon House and in line with the longer term County-wide strategy.

More information was requested about the shape and scope of the Supported Lettings Pilot for which the Council was seeking grant funding. This was essentially an intensive tenancy sustainment intervention to provide former rough sleepers with the skills to maintain their tenancies and manage the risks that could see them become homeless again.

No recommendations were made on the report.

An update report on the Council’s activities in relation to Rough Sleeping and hidden homelessness, particularly in light of Covid 19.

Councillor Mike Rowley, Cabinet Member for Affordable Housing and Paul Wilding, Rough Sleeping and Single Homeless Manager, will be attending the meeting to present the report.

The Panel is recommended to consider the report and agree any recommendations it wishes to make to Cabinet arising from it.

Rough Sleeping Update

Paul Wilding, Rough Sleeping and Single Homeless Manager, presented the Rough Sleeping Update. Due to the fast-pace of developments in this area, a number of items in the report provided had significant updates. These included the announcement of a new national lockdown. The government had provided no new duties on Councils regarding rough sleeping, but following the efforts to provide interim accommodation during the first lockdown, numbers were low. Confirmation had been received from MHCLG that the planned November street count could proceed. An announcement had been made by MHCLG of almost £1m in funding from the Long Term Accommodation Fund to the Council which, alongside other provision, would mean 20 new units and 45 bed spaces would be available for long term rough sleepers for move-on accommodation. This comprised all the funding that the Council had applied for from the fund. Finally, the Council’s Severe Weather Emergency Protocol (SWEP) had been updated and a briefing would be provided to Councillors on it.

In its response to the report and presentation, the Panel raised a number of issues and questions. Firstly, the support available to those who had turned down interim accommodation during the pandemic. It was explained that St Mungo’s as the commissioned outreach service would offer support to rough sleepers. If they were to refuse accommodation that would be respected, but St Mungo’s would still continue to provide the same support afterwards.

The source of the additional units available for rough sleepers paid for through the Long Term Accommodation Fund grant was questioned. Five were to be purchased from the market, ten Council properties to be repurposed, and to five acquired from housing associations. The process for identifying which properties to repurpose would be largely based on which Council properties of one-bedroom became available. Further funding would be required, but it was the ambition to reach 50 such units in total owing to the success of such units in helping rough sleepers to find and maintain permanent accommodation. Whilst repurposing did diminish the availability of properties for other types of council tenants, avoiding the need to provide expensive and extensive ancillary services for rough sleepers represented a saving. Furthermore, the Council in providing 4.5% of social housing for temporary accommodation and move-on for rough sleepers was providing relatively little in comparison to some other Councils, with Hull providing 21% and Milton Keynes dedicating 16% to that purpose. The Council was 163^rd out of 323 in the level of provision nationwide on that metric.

Clarity was sought regarding the status of provision of temporary accommodation for those with no recourse to public funds during the lockdown. It was confirmed that currently approximately 20 individuals without recourse to public funds were being provided temporary accommodation, though there was unclear advice from MHCLG on this. At some point, the Council’s ability to provide such support would cease, making it all the more important to work to find solutions as quickly as possible. In the longer term, Paul  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31