Agenda item

RESOLVED:

·         That the Committee welcomed the honesty and transparency of this presentation. The Committee had been concerned about repairs for a long time and hoped that work would now progress in the right direction.

·         That the Committee recognised how important repairs were for Lewisham’s residents and would review the progress of the repairs service again at its meetings in the new municipal year.

Gillian Douglas (Executive Director for Housing) provided a PowerPoint presentation on this agenda item. This was followed by questions from the Committee members. The following key points were noted:

1.1. A Committee member enquired how repair cases in the backlog were prioritised. Officers reported that they acknowledge that each repair case was different and that some needed more urgent resolution. Vulnerability of tenants was a significant factor in prioritising repair work in some cases. It was also noted that the delay in repair work had often been caused by the lack of glaziers. Officers reported that the Council now had 3 glaziers.

1.2. It was discussed that the accountability of the contractors was an important issue. Officers acknowledged that it was important for the Council to be a competent client and hold its contractors to account.

1.3. It was noted that a high proportion of emergency repair requests (approximately 30%) were because of routine repair cases slipping, entering the backlog and then being escalated and becoming urgent.

1.4. Timely repairs were important to ensure the wellbeing of residents. It was suggested that maybe there could be inspectors from the Council who could check the work undertaken by the contractor.

1.5. Feedback from the residents was that the scheduling of repair jobs was not efficient.

1.6. Lewisham was a part of London Councils. As part of that the housing directors from all authorities in London met regularly for discussions. The main challenges facing most local authorities in London were- the base quality of their housing stock, difficult budget situation and the operation system of how repairs were being handled.

1.7. The figure of over 15,000 repair cases in the backlog needed reviewing. Some diagnostic work was needed to cleanse that data since the data may have included old cases that have already moved on. Following the diagnostic work, the Council would have a more accurate picture of the backlog.

1.8. The presentation highlighted that the average days to bring minor void properties back into use was 75 days and the average cost of each void YTD was £8,500. The long turnaround time for voids was usually related to the quality of the housing stock. However, it was noted that just the turnaround time was not a good indicator of success when it came to voids. Old housing stock meant there was a lot of work to be done before the property could be brought up to the letting standard. Nevertheless, it was observed that the end-to-end process of turning around voids could be made more efficient.

1.9. The published service standard to tenants on the Council’s website, committed the Council to the following timescales for repairs- 20 days for standard repairs, 3 days for urgent repairs and 24 hours for emergency repairs. However, this commitment was not being met.

1.10. Council officers met with the Social Housing Regulator after the Council self-referred itself. This meeting was very soon after the self-referral, so the Regulator hadn’t reviewed any case details, but they welcomed the openness and transparency of the self-referral.

1.11. There had been a Freedom of Information request about this self-referral. The media had also picked up the news regarding the self-referral but there hadn’t been any major feedback. Officers had prepared some FAQs to reassure residents. There was a request to share these FAQs with the members of the Committee.

1.12. Councillor Will Cooper, Cabinet Member for Housing Management and Homelessness, reported that the feedback he had received on the self-referral had been generally positive as it showcased that the Council was committed to improving its services.

The Committee suspended standing orders.

1.13. Lewisham Council had very strong building safety and fire safety teams. These teams were very thorough in generating actions. However, more efficiency was needed in completing those actions.

RESOLVED:

·         That the Committee welcomed the honesty and transparency of this presentation. The Committee had been concerned about repairs for a long time and hoped that work would now progress in the right direction.

·         That the Committee recognised how important repairs were for Lewisham’s residents and would review the progress of the repairs service again at its meetings in the new municipal year.