To receive any update from the working groups.
Minutes:
Quarterly Performance Report Review Working Group
The Chair reported that the target date for completing this review would be moved to the first meeting of the next municipal year so that working group members could provide any comments and the review be progressed over the next couple of months. The Chair requested that members of the group provide these comments to him as soon as possible.
Leaseholder Charges Communication Working Group
Councillor M Cook presented to the Committee an overview of the activities undertaken and views and positions reached by the working group, together with other members of the working group, which covered:
1. That there had been two meetings of the working group which comprised councillors M Cook, D Cook, C Cooke, S Goodall, J Harper and S Peaple.
2. Officers had provided information and data requested by the working group.
3. In terms of the numbers of properties impacted this had been confirmed as 44 leaseholder roofs and 72 roofs within council owned stock and the council was working through it’s retained properties and that there would be further roofs to be considered over the coming years.
4. The process previously used for undertaking replacements was outlined which involved a mixture of pre inspection, condition surveys, age profiling and local knowledge based on repairs history to build up an annual list.
5. In respect of the properties focussed on this time, the process had involved s20 Consultation. It was reported that the way that stock condition assessments worked meant that a sample of around 20% of similar properties would be undertaken, followed by data analysis to determine the programme of works and timelines. Therefore, the council had potentially sent letters to leaseholders to notify them that their roofs could require replacement where an inspection of the specific roof, in advance of the notification letters being issued, had not been undertaken. It was the working group’s opinion that prior to such formal notification, the council should write to request access to inspect to determine what works would be required.
6. Residents had provided evidence and the working group had aimed to ensure they were involved as far as possible.
7. It was reported that the procedure was a complicated and legalistic one and whilst the council had followed the procedure, it was possible that there could be some holes in the procedure which could be looked at. It was reported that currently the council consulted with leaseholders first and following that inspected the properties and that potentially this should be done the other way round.
8. That the working group felt that the language used in communications was not sufficiently accessible and transparent to the leaseholders.
The Committee considered the working groups findings and following discussion made several recommendations to Cabinet.
RESOLVED that the Committee recommended:
1. That the council look at using an independent assessor for works to confirm costs were correct.
2. That an assessment be done for all repairs in advance of leaseholders being asked to contribute to repairs.
3. To reinforce the council’s communications when residents buy a council house, including what responsibilities and obligations were on the owner occupier.
4. That the communications relating to the leaseholder works be reviewed and simplified.
5. That the contractor hold at least two face-to-face consultation drop ins to enable residents to understand the process.
6. That the specific 44 leaseholder roofs be assessed straight away.
7. That the council consider a mechanism such that the affected 44 leaseholders were not faced with increased costs as a result of the delay in works being commenced.
(Moved by Councillor M Cook and seconded by Councillor S Goodall)