Agenda item

RESOLVED:

·         That the updates provided by Clarion Housing Group, Hyde Housing, L&Q, Peabody and Southern Housing be noted; and that Clarion Housing Group provide further information on the lessons that had been learnt from recent Ombudsman cases, including the corrective actions that had been taken to ensure mistakes were not repeated.

The Committee had invited 5 housing providers to provide an update on their repairs service. These 5 housing providers were Clarion Housing Group, Hyde Housing, L&Q, Peabody and Southern Housing.

Susan Clinton (Head of Operations) presented the update from Clarion Housing Group, followed by questions from the Committee members. The following key points were noted:

4.1. An incident such as an uncontainable flood in a property or anything that impacts immediately on the health and safety of the residents was classed as an emergency repair. Emergency repairs were completed within 24 hours. The target to complete routine repairs was 28 days but appointments could usually be made within 5-10 working days.

4.1. Condensation, damp and mould cases had been challenging to resolve not just due to in-house resources but also due to supply chain issues in obtaining materials and support from external contractors. A central team had now been set-up that was dedicated to looking at condensation, damp and mould cases.

4.1. Clarion had good levels of staff retention but did experience significant challenges in recruiting surveyors.

4.1. Clarion currently had 160 active disrepair cases in South London. Information would be sent to the Committee members around how many of those cases were in Lewisham and also around Clarion’s disrepair budget.

4.1. Customer Satisfaction for repairs was generally high based on the sample survey that was conducted quarterly. The target for overall customer satisfaction was 85% and was generally met or exceeded. Both transactional and perception surveys were used.

4.1. According to the officer from Clarion, most of the condensation, damp and mould cases had an element of lifestyle causes. Overcrowding was also a huge factor in these cases. The Council had 100% nomination rights to properties managed by Clarion in the borough so there was very little Clarion could do when it came to rehousing but they recognised that supply of accommodation was a big issue in the housing sector.

4.1. A member of the Committee mentioned that it was important to have pictures of female surveyors in the report along with male surveyors to ensure both were equally represented.

4.1. The Committee enquired about how Clarion was preparing to manage the cost implications of the amendment to the Social Housing Regulation bill and was informed that Clarion would be reducing its Planned Maintenance Program and may need to reassess its New Build Programme.

4.1. From March 2022 to October 2022, Clarion had 40 cases before the Housing Ombudsman. After every Ombudsman determination, the relevant Heads of Service were tasked with completing a lessons learnt template to ensure that learning from those determinations informed how resources were allocated and how their processes could be improved.

4.1. On being asked about what lessons had been learnt by Clarion so far from the Ombudsman cases and other complaints, the officer from Clarion stated that one of the lessons had been around operatives struggling to gain access to a property to complete the repairs work after a schedule of works had been agreed and that this may be driven by residents wanting to maximise compensation or their chaotic lifestyles. Members of the Committee criticised these comments and stated that they sounded like Clarion was blaming residents and trying to absolve itself of any responsibility. Members requested further information on lessons that had been learnt from these cases and the corrective actions that had been taken to ensure mistakes were not repeated.

4.1. It was suggested that as part of proactive staff training, there should be a focus on promoting equitable treatment of all residents.

Steve Austin (Head of Maintenance) presented the update from Hyde Housing, followed by questions from the Committee members. The following key points were noted:

4.1. Hyde Housing had just completed a business case for investing in their disrepair budget and managed to add another £1million to it.

4.1. The repairs team was nearly fully staffed but Hyde Housing was looking at establishing a separate team for damp and mould. One challenge in recruitment was the difficulty in recruiting multi-trade operatives.

4.1. Customer satisfaction with repairs was around 75% but officers recognised that it could be better. An external company was being used to call residents and collect feedback after the repair work had been completed.

4.1. Hyde had just set up a dedicated team with a centralised mail box for all damp and mould cases. Any resident who called about a damp and mould case would be signposted to this mailbox. All cases from this mailbox went to the surveying team that called the resident to gather more information. If the surveying team received enough information on the call, they would raise a call for the resident and if they didn’t receive enough information, they would go to the property to inspect, take pictures and decide the course of action.

4.1. It was agreed that doing a mould wash was just a temporary fix, but it was still necessary in some cases until long-term next steps were decided.

4.1. Hyde was still recruiting operatives. They were mainly looking for multi-trade finishers and expected to be fully staffed within the next 2-3 months. In the meantime, external contractors were assisting with the caseload but were predominantly focused on the disrepair cases.

4.1. Hyde had just over 400 disrepair across the organisation and spent around £10K-£15K on a case. Including the costs for the repair works, each disrepair case cost ~£20K which equates to £8million a year. However, Hyde’s disrepair budget was ~£2.7million a year.

David Lewis (Executive Group Director of Property Services) presented the update from L&Q, followed by questions from the Committee members. The following key points were noted:

4.1. L&Q completed around 250,000 repairs a year. They had partnered with Plentific which functioned as a contractor marketplace to increase capacity and ensure turnaround times on repairs were met. Contractors from Plentific were being utilised for completing smaller repairs where demand had spiked. L&Q were also trying to recruit more sub-contractors.

4.1. Ease of dealing with L&Q was one parameter that was being used to measure customer satisfaction and the target score for this was set at 65%. Performance in this area had historically been lower. Therefore, even though a target of 65% seemed low, it was still an improving position.

4.1. L&Q did not close emergency repair jobs immediately after the initial make safe. They kept the job open until a follow-up was done confirming that the job had satisfactorily been completed.

4.1. 80% of L&Q’s disrepair cases stemmed from situations where either the issue hadn’t been correctly diagnosed or it wasn’t correctly dealt with in the first instance. Therefore, L&Q ensured that all of its surveyors received training around building pathology, leak prevention, damp and mould, to ensure proper diagnosis. Contact centre staff and housing officers were also being trained on the same.

4.1. Along with a transactional customer satisfaction survey, L&Q also conducted an annual perception survey. This survey highlighted that the most important factor influencing residents’ satisfaction was the condition of their home. L&Q recognised this and was determined to invest in their stock.

4.1. An analysis of last 5 years of complaints had shown that the number of complaints always increased in autumn and winter with 75% of them involving damp and mould.

4.1. A very active Resident Services Board sat within L&Q’s tenant engagement structure, along with various regional committees to ensure residents always had the opportunity to engage with the organisation.

4.1. L&Q had 39 complaints before the Housing Ombudsman which was a significant number of cases considering the size of its housing stock. These cases highlighted that L&Q needed to invest in its stock and improve the conditions of its buildings. There was a need to reduce reactive spending and increase planned spending.

4.1. L&Q had a specialist internal team for managing damp & mould cases and were also working with specialist contractor Zap Carbon. They also had a ring-fenced budget for damp & mould which was £6million per year.

Shane Sorour (Director of Repairs) presented the update from Peabody, followed by questions from the Committee members. The following key points were noted:

4.1. It was discussed that 70-75% of all disrepair cases for Peabody had damp and mould as a contributing factor. Therefore, they had enhanced their damp and mould response. If a resident contacted Peabody with this issue, they would receive a call back within 24 hours and have a condition survey within 48 hours.

4.1. 60-65% of damp and mould cases encountered by Peabody were due to structural issues or water penetration which was then exasperated by overcrowding and environmental factors in the property.

4.1. In April 2022, the customer satisfaction for Peabody was 83% and last month it was recorded as 85%. There had been ups and downs, but their lowest satisfaction score had been 77% whereas highest was 85%.

4.1. 94% of emergency repairs were generally completed within 4 hours and depending on vulnerability of the residents in the property, they could be completed within as quick as 2 hours. Routine repairs were completed within 13 days and Peabody kept 91.9% of their appointments.

4.1. Peabody’s average spend on remediating disrepair claims was £5000 per case. Their disrepair budget including legal fees and compensation was £3million a year.

4.1. Brexit and the cost-of-living crisis presented a lot of challenges for the housing industry and affected the repairs service as well. There was a reduction in skilled operatives to be able to deliver repairs and maintenance service because of Brexit. Obtaining materials was also a challenge along with supply chains delays and rising cost of materials.

Carl Dewey (Director of Repair and Estate Transformation) and Jackie Pauley (Head of Region- London) presented the update from Southern Housing, followed by questions from the Committee members. The following key points were noted:

4.1. Repair services in Lewisham were predominantly delivered by the in-house team. Transaction surveys indicated that customer satisfaction with repairs was ~97-98% and based on perception surveys customer satisfaction was 70-75%. A 5-point descriptive Likert scale was used for the surveys so that they aligned with the tenant satisfaction measures.

4.1.  The average end-to-end time for repairs was 16 days for residents in Lewisham.

4.1. As part of the merger of Optivo with Southern Housing, both legacy organisations had committed to levelling up their standard Terms & Conditions.

4.1. A member of the Committee praised the support services that Southern Housing was offering its residents through their specialist financial inclusion team, specialist tenancy sustainment team, various support grants and local initiatives.

4.1. Southern Housing had 466 disrepair cases. On average each case cost them ~£7000. A major portion of legal services was provided in-house, leading to lower legal costs.

RESOLVED:

·         That the updates provided by Clarion Housing Group, Hyde Housing, L&Q, Peabody and Southern Housing be noted; and that Clarion Housing Group provide further information on the lessons that had been learnt from recent Ombudsman cases, including the corrective actions that had been taken to ensure mistakes were not repeated.

The Committee voted to suspend standing orders.