Agenda and minutes
PDF 189 KBVenue: Room 102, Hackney Town Hall, Mare Street, London E8 1EA. View directions
Contact: Tom Thorn
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Apologies for Absence Minutes: 1.1 Apologies had been received from Cllr McMahon. |
|
|
Urgent Items / Order of Business Minutes: 2.1 There were no urgent items and the order of business was as laid out. |
|
|
Declarations of Interest Minutes: 3.1 Interests were declared as below.
· In relation to items 4 and 6 the Chair declared she was a Council leaseholder · In relation to items 4 and 6 the Vice Chair and Cllr Ozsen declared they were Council tenants · In relation to agenda item 5 Cllr Lynch declared she was a Southern Housing tenant · In relation to agenda item 5 Cllr Rathbone declared his wife was a Peabody tenant · In relation to agenda item 5 Cllr Wrout declared she was a Member of the Board of Hackney Parochial Alms-houses.
|
|
|
Management of asbestos in Council-managed homes Additional documents:
Minutes: 4.1 The Chair welcomed the following guests for this item:
· Ajman Ali, Director, Housing Services · Donna Bryce, Head of Resident Safety, Housing Services
4.2 The Chair also welcomed Cllr James Peters who had an interest in the subject of asbestos management from his case work.
4.3 Invited to make any opening comments, the Head of Resident Safety presented the paper which was available in the agenda packs. She made the following points:
· The paper provided the history, processes and procedures in place for the management of asbestos within Housing Services.
· She would not detail the full report. However, key points included work to reach out to Council leaseholders, in addition to tenants to ensure they got the advice around asbestos as and when they needed it.
· Historically, one of the major partnering contracts had been used for works related to asbestos management. The Council wanted to exert greater control. Two in-house surveyors had been recruited who would be predominantly focused on void properties and on re-inspections of asbestos left in situ (where asbestos was left where it was and managed and monitored, rather than being removed). A specialist asbestos contractor was in place to complement this resource so that support was available on a 24 hour basis.
· The service was working towards being able to carry out all air testing itself following works itself rather than for this to be done by contractors.
· It was also seeking to get a consistent and effective approach in place around information available to residents regarding asbestos in homes. Contractors carrying out asbestos survey work and removals often used jargon in reports. The service was getting in place standardised templates for recording information around asbestos. These were designed to be clear and user friendly, and accessible for residents who were not specialised in the area.
· The Planned Asset Management service sometimes delivered asbestos works through major works programmes, via other contractors. The Resident Safety Team was liaising closely with them. This was in order to ensure that records of this work would follow the same user-friendly, accessible format.
· The service was improving information for residents. New Council residents were given information leaflets about asbestos, and copies of asbestos reports if asbestos was present in their property. There was a dedicated phone line and email address in place.
· Prior to a resident moving into a property, a decision would be made on whether to remove the asbestos or to leave it in situ. Often, it would be removed, particularly when a survey deemed it a risk that it could be disturbed. However, in some cases it was safer to leave it untouched. In these cases, annual inspections were carried out to ensure that it remained in a safe condition.
· A new and very knowledgeable Asbestos Manager had been recruited. All Officers in the asbestos team had been trained to P405 (a Management of Asbestos Standard). This meant that Officers were able to deal with enquiries to better ensure residents received advice promptly. This training ... view the full minutes text for item 4. |
|
|
Item to inform likely review - Context on Registered Providers operating in Hackney Additional documents: Minutes: 5.1 The Chair welcomed James Goddard, Director, Regeneration for this item.
5.2 She reminded Members that in in its last meeting the Commission had discussed exploring a range of areas around housing management - in relation to both the Council and Housing Associations – for its main review of the year.
5.3 During the summer she had held further discussions with Officers. These meetings had left her with a view that the review should focus only on housing associations, and the varying practice by different providers. This was due to the variance across housing associations meaning that a review of this area alone would already be a substantial one.
5.4 Alongside this, the Commission would continue to hold one off items in relation to the Council’s Housing Services throughout the year, including on fire safety, resident engagement and community halls management.
5.5 This item was intended to give the Commission a broad insight into the housing associations operating in Hackney, and the interaction between these and the Council. Noting the slides available in the agenda packs, the Chair asked that the Director, Regeneration made any opening comments.
5.6 The Director, Regeneration made the following points:
· There were many types of organisations which could be broadly described as Housing Associations; Registered Providers, Registered Social Landlords, Housing Co-ops, Community Groups, Community Trusts, Charities and Registered Providers. There were differences between them in some cases, highlighting the varying types of organisation his area dealt with.
· Broadly, Registered Providers were described by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government as “Independent, not for profit housing providers, approved and regulated, provide homes for households in housing need”. This was not a legal definition, but could act as some guide.
· Some housing associations were registered. These were accountable to the Regulator of Social Housing, as were local Housing Authorities (including the Council). Others were charities, with reporting lines to the Charity Commission.
5.7 In response to a question, the Director, Regeneration advised that the Regulator of Social Housing was a formal government body, regulating all forms of social housing. This said, it applied different forms of regulation to the different types of organisations providing social housing. For example, some of the data indicators reported to the regulator by Councils, would not be reported by housing associations. 5.8 Also, some approaches followed by Housing Associations – including around the extent of gearing (borrowing) to support investment – were less relevant to Councils. In short, this made comparisons between Councils and Housing Associations difficult.
5.9 Housing Associations followed different models. Some saw themselves as specialist; for example by focusing their housing resources on older people and or people from particular community groups. This was now less common, due to a range of mergers and also an increasing consensus that a mainstreaming approach was better. There were some specialist providers in Hackney – including Anchor and Hanover - which focused on older people.
5.10 The size and reach of housing associations varied substantially. North London Muslim Housing Association ... view the full minutes text for item 5. |
|
|
Additional documents: Minutes: 6.1 The following guests were in attendance for this item:
· Ajman Ali, Director Housing Services · Jahedur Rahman, Head of Housing Transformation · Steve Platt, Head of Building Maintenance
6.2 The Chair noted that the main review for the year would focus on housing associations. However, she still felt that the Commission would find it useful to receive the context around the performance of Housing Services.
6.3 She had therefore asked the Head of the Housing Transformation Service to present to the Commission on the work of his service. His area led on satisfaction monitoring, research and improvement, reviewing and reporting the performance framework, benchmarking, statutory returns to Government, and business and strategic plans.
6.4 The Head of Housing Transformation delivered a presentation, the slides of which are available via this link:
6.5 Following the presentation, the Chair said she welcomed the increases in levels of satisfaction between 2016 when the management of the Council’s housing stock came back into the Council, and 2019.
6.6 She also noted the strength of the data on which this was based, in terms of the numbers of residents surveyed.
6.7 She asked if on an overall level the data suggested that the Council had made enough progress since housing management had been transferred back into the organisation.
6.8 The Head of Building Maintenance offered to answer this question as a wide range of the satisfaction measures mentioned in the presentation were relevant to his area (which included repairs). He said progress had been made but there was a lot more still to do. The repairs service restructure went live in April. Area Surveyors were now in place, each with lead responsibility for geographical areas. This had been put in place in reflection of resident feedback. He looked forward to later surveys helping to indicate the impact of this on levels of satisfaction.
6.9 Adding to this, the Head of Housing Transformation said that lower rates of satisfaction among leaseholders compared to tenants in Hackney and also the smaller increases in rates over time, reflected a national issue.
6.10 However, this was not to say there was not room for improvement locally, which the service was looking to address. Leaseholder experience would be an area of focus.
6.11 There was lower satisfaction among leaseholders around value for money and also communal repairs. There was a call for greater transparency around the works being required, the quality of it, and the costs.
6.12 Tenants now had access to their rent accounts online. However leaseholders were not able to access their service charge accounts this way. The service was working to get this in place.
6.13 The Division was also hoping to set up a specific body which would be accountable to leaseholders, therefore enabling a greater say by leaseholders in the management of communal areas.
6.14 There was an acknowledgement that letters to leaseholders were sometimes inaccessible and unclear. The service was working to improve this.
6.15 The Chair felt that the service needed to differentiate ... view the full minutes text for item 6. |
|
|
Additional documents:
Minutes: 7.1 The Chair advised that the Commission’s letter to the Cabinet Member for Housing Services and his response, had been included in the agenda in order to make them public.
7.2 The Commission’s letter had set out recommendations for Housing Services to consider within its reviews of community halls and the Resident Participation Team. The Commission would receive later items looking at the outcomes of these reviews.
7.3 Cllr Rathbone noted that the wording for recommendation 11 (which appeared twice in the Commission’s letter) contained repetitions of words ‘that the’.
7.4 Cllr Lynch advised that a Budget Scrutiny Group looking at fees and charges, would be continuing under her chair ship. She felt it likely that this would continue to give consideration to community halls aspects including hire charges and levels of usage. She felt that ensuring the effective usage of community halls could play a role in helping the Council to meet its very significant financial challenges. |
|
|
Minutes of the Previous Meeting Additional documents: Minutes: 8.1 The minutes of the Commission meeting of 15th July were agreed as an accurate record. |
|
|
Living in Hackney Scrutiny Commission- 2019/20 Work Programme Additional documents: Minutes: 9.1 The 2019/20 Work Programme was noted. |
|
|
Any Other Business Minutes: 10.1 Cllr Rathbone recalled the Commission’s meetings with Thames Water in November 2018 and April 2019. This followed the flooding and damage caused by a burst Thames Water main in his ward of Leabridge.
10.2 He reminded Members that the Old Schoolhouse - which a charity was working to bring back into community use - had been effected by the flood. The flood had also prevented the charity from being able to deliver the activities on the site from which it had planned to raise funds for the fuller renovation. At the point of the meetings, the charity was liaising with Thames Water around compensation arrangements.
10.3 He said that the charity had now called an end to its dialogue with Thames Water on the issue, due to what it had said was Thames Water’s poor and dishonest behaviour. The company were taking no responsibility for the charity’s loss of fund raising opportunities.
10.4 He said that another resident who was vulnerable and whose home was severely damaged, had lost all of her goods and furniture. Upon her return she had no furniture or curtains, and had been helped by neighbours donating blankets. He had been trying to help the resident but both her housing association (Clarion) and Thames Water were saying that the other was accountable for her having no furniture. He was continuing to seek to advocate on her behalf.
10.5 The Chair thanked Cllr Rathbone. She offered to take up the case with Thames Water, on behalf of the Commission.
10.6 Cllr Rathbone thanked the Chair and said he would liaise with her as appropriate. |