Agenda item

(Report of the Portfolio Holder for Housing, Homelessness and Planning)

The Portfolio Holder for Housing, Homelessness and Planning / Executive Director Communities introduced the report to provide an update on the review of Leaseholder charging undertaken by Campbell Tickel in response to concerns raised about the Council’s approach to leaseholder charging, thanking Cambell Tickell(CT)  for their report and acknowledging the work carried out by all those involved in this piece of work before handing over to the Executive Director, Communities and Assistant Director, Assets.

The Committee made the following comments/observations and asked the following questions:

1.     Whether the Officers and Portfolio Holder endorse the recommendations from the CT report, whether there were any areas that they did not endorse, whether the recommendations refer to the findings within the original CT report and were there and proposed deviations to the finding in the report?

Officers confirmed that they broadly endorse the findings of the report and that the report summarises/paraphrases the finding of the CT report, which was also attached as an Appendix. It was highlighted that completing a repair on a property does not make the larger problem go away but just defers the matter.

It was highlighted from a finance point of view the Council they have not taken on board the full recommendations of the report such as offering a discount for early payment, as the Council would not be able to recover the full cost and this would fall upon HRA tenants, they were also not considering offering a loan scheme as there was no allowance for this within the corporate credit policy previous agreed, however anyone struggling to make payments could contact the Council to look at making a payment arrangement.

2.     Highlighted that the report suggests that communications had been poor in the past which has been stressful to those affected and that an apology was called for. It was highlighted that there was a recommendation some years ago that council review all communications, and do we use the plain English crystal mark in our communications?

It was confirmed that there was a new suite of letters from CT which still meet the legal requirements of the council but in a more customer friendly manner. There would also be better quality information available to those using the right to buy process and the website would be updated in a more customer friendly fashion. Future engagement would also be looked at as part of the policy alongside work on wider tenant engagement, but there would be resource implications to consider.

It was highlighted by the Committee that new suite of letters was still not customer friendly enough.

3.     What are the cost implications moving forward?

It was confirmed that there were hours remaining within the TC contract which should enable work to continue to produce a policy (aiming for April 2025). In terms of internal resources, they would be looking at priorities and existing commitments to meet this from the resource they currently have.

4.     What is the benefit to the Council keeping the leaseholds and whether they could consider getting rid of them?

It was confirmed that in most cases the leaseholds cover a mixture of council tenants and private housing and so they could not dispose of them.

5.     Clarification around how the first-tier tribunal test case would work and why this was being considered when there was currently no need to renew the roofs?

The officers confirmed that questions were raised by leaseholders as to whether the lease allows for renewals as opposed to repairs. The Council are of the opinion that this is permitted within the lease, and it is on the recommendation of TC the Council would take a test case to court in consultation with leaseholders to establish whether this is the case to inform future planning. It was highlighted that Council does not have the option to not collect monies for the work under the lease as it has a responsibility to collect monies where it is fiscally possible.

The Committee expressed concern at a current leaseholder being used for this test case and suggested that it should not be anyone who has been affected up to this point.

6.     The Committee highlighted that in the private sector a goodwill gesture would be made to those affected by the process and whether this was something the Council could consider?

Officers confirmed that this is something they would need to look into.

7.     What comes next and why does the Council report talk about a service improvement plan, but the TC report does not?

Officers confirmed that there is still work to be done, the report recommends a policy which is still ongoing, and that this is not the final report. In order to respond to the findings of the report, it was felt that a service improvement plan was needed moving forward.

8.     Clarification around the stock survey and why the roof survey was not an appendix to the report?

The findings of the roof survey were included within the report so it was not thought it was necessary to attach the technical document to the report but that this could be circulated to Members. A full stock survey (which historically is carried out every five years) is currently being conducted which will look at every property and provide a notional lifespan. CT have asked that this information be made available to leaseholders as soon as possible.

The Committee suggested that it would be useful for leaseholders to receive a short-, medium- and long-term plan of works required to enable planning.

9.     Clarification around the difference between the Officer report which suggests the roof life was 7-10 years with average investment of £5000 per block whereas the CT report says that they have 10 years left and there was no need to replace and why the Council were still considering renewal as an option over remedial works when the CT report states that there is no need for renewal at this stage.

The Officer confirmed that the estimate of 7-10 years had come from discussions with a technical advisor at CT and the £5000 was an average cost as for some blocks works were coming in at around £2000 whereas others it was £8000.

It was highlighted that in future the Committee would like to see all the detail as to how information within the report was obtained and asked the Portfolio Holder to go away and check this information.

10.Why the report was still a draft?

Officers confirmed that this was the report provided by CT and that expected this to be the final report.

11.Whether in regards to next steps there had been any internal changes made within the organisation yet?

Officers confirmed that no specific changes had been made yet, however this would be looked at as part of the service improvement plan, but that improvements were being made through the social housing regulations which would be echoed in engagement with leaseholders, it was highlighted that they had not had the requirement to issue any further section 20 notices but that ground work had been done in relation to the Council’s overall engagement with customers.

12.It was highlighted that this subject needed to move forward on a positive path for all involved.

13.With regards to recommendation one the Committee raised concern at endorsing the findings of the CT report where there were areas that the Officers were not taking on  board.

Recommendation seven from the report was not moved.