Issue - meetings

RESOLVED:

·         that the report be noted and the requested information from officers of RB3 be provided as discussed during the meeting.

·         that officers be invited to a future Committee meeting to present a detailed report on the PFI contract expiration preparations.

Fenella Beckman (Director of Housing Strategy) introduced the report, and was accompanied by John Pedretti (General Manager, RB3), Kenneth Gill (Area Manager, Pinnacle) and Hugo Marais (Head of Operations, Rydon). This was followed by questions from the Committee members. The following key points were noted:

5.1. Regenter B3 (RB3) hosted highly attended monthly open surgeries for residents, typically drawing a crowd of 30-35 residents. Additionally, they organised welfare advice surgeries twice a week, which also enjoyed substantial attendance.

5.2. In the contract, there were detailed provisions regarding the required ‘handback’ standard for the properties. This included the Council conducting surveys before the properties were handed back to assess the necessary work required to achieve the handback criteria.

5.3. Resident satisfaction with resident engagement had declined, based on the annual KPIs (Key Performance Indicators). Therefore, officers were looking for different ways to engage with the residents. Due to leaseholder questions taking up more time in the tenant and leaseholder forums in the past, a decision was made to hold separate sessions for each group. 4 annual sessions were held for the tenants and leaseholders where they could share their views on service delivery, community projects and initiatives such as wildflower meadows or community gardens. Officers anticipated having more data by the next quarter, allowing them to discern trends and determine whether residents favoured the new engagement approach.

5.4. The report noted that 58 complaints were not upheld. This was often due to it being the first time RB3 had been notified of a service failure, and a case was only classified as a complaint when a service failure was reported but not satisfactorily resolved. Stage 1 complaints were managed by the service managers, Stage 2 complaints were managed by the area manager and Stage 3 complaints went to the independent adjudicator. The lessons learnt from these complaints were communicated to the staff in weekly team meetings and officers were happy to collate some of those lessons learnt and share it with the Committee.

5.5. It was noted that Brockley PFI had housing stock beyond the Brockley ward, and clarity around that was deemed essential. Officers concurred on the importance of clarity, stating that their website already conveyed this information. They also mentioned that the upcoming quarterly magazine, scheduled for release in the next 3-4 weeks, could serve as a means to communicate this further.

5.6. Officers agreed to share with the Committee the procedure they followed for addressing antisocial behaviour and noise complaints.

5.7. It was discussed that some of the positive information in the report didn’t align with councillors’ direct experiences. For instance, while the report praised the Ermine Road community garden initiative, councillors learned it had been a challenging process. Officers explained that certain projects were initiated by a small group of residents, but broader engagement was necessary to ensure majority support, leading to longer timelines. Nevertheless, officers had recently opted for a shorter consultation period of 7-10 days.

5.8. Officers had faced challenges in recruiting for permanent positions  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5