Agenda and minutes

(Assistant to the Chief Executive)  To report the appointment of any substitute members for the meeting.

There were no substitute members.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive). To declare interests in any items on the agenda.

In considering whether to declare a personal or a prejudicial interest under the Code of Conduct, Overview & Scrutiny members are asked pay particular attention to paragraph 11 of the Code in addition to the more familiar requirements.

This requires the declaration of a personal and prejudicial interest in any matter before an OS Committee which relates to a decision of or action by another Committee or Sub Committee of the Council, a Joint Committee or Joint Sub Committee in which the Council is involved and of which the Councillor is also a member.

Paragraph 11 does not refer to Cabinet decisions or attendance at an OS meeting purely for the purpose of answering questions or providing information on such a matter.

Councillor Stephen Murray declared a personal interest in item 10 Review of Epping Forest Careline by virtue of his mother using a dispersed alarm. Residential alarms were discussed in the meeting.

(Chairman/Lead Officer) The Overview and Scrutiny Committee has agreed the Terms of Reference of this Panel and associated Work Programme. This is attached. The Panel are asked at each meeting to review both documents.

The Terms of Reference for the Panel were noted. It was noted that the Working Group on Member Training has requested that a Housing Information Evening be provided on the same evening as the 9 October 2008 meeting of the Housing Scrutiny Panel, which would particularly assist new members of the Panel.

(Director of Housing Services) To consider the attached report.

Mr A Hall, Director of Housing, presented a report to the Panel regarding the out-turn of the Housing BVPI and LPI Performance Indicators for 2007/08.

Up to March 2008, all councils had been required to record, monitor and publish Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPIs) for a range of council services which included Housing Services. In addition, local authorities often recorded, monitored and published Local Performance Indicators (LPIs) for services which the local authority considered important. From the range of BVPIs and LPIs the District Council had selected Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) which it considered important indicators to monitor. From April 2008 the lengthy number of BVPIs had been replaced by a smaller number of National Indictors. The District Council had re-designated some of the former BVPIs as LPIs so that they are still monitored. Performance against all the Council’s BVPIs and LPIs was monitored on a quarterly basis by the Finance and Performance Management Scrutiny Panel. The Chairman of the Housing Scrutiny Panel had asked that performance on the Housing BVPIs and LPIs be reported to the Housing Scrutiny Panel for its consideration.

The following conclusions could be drawn:

• The Council’s housing performance improved in 2007/08 in respect of 14 indicators (58%)
• There was no change in housing performance for 4 indicators (17%)
• The Council’s housing performance worsened in 2007/08 in respect of 6 indicators (25%)
• Housing performance met or exceeded the target in respect of 16 indicators (67%)
• Housing performance failed to meet the target in respect of 8 indicators (33%)
• Housing performance was in the top quartile for all district councils in respect of BVPIs (25%) and was not in the top quartile in respect of 9 BVPIs (75%)

Councillor Mrs L Wagland began the discussion by saying she was surprised at the first indicator, regarding percentage of tenants evicted as a result of rent arrears, as being an “inappropriate indicator.” Mr A Hall said that this indicator did not necessarily reflect the Council’s performance on collecting rent and minimising rent arrears. Evictions were only done as a last resort and as a responsible landlord the District Council only evicted if it was necessary. He said that it would be wrong to judge the District Council by its number of evictions. The Chairman commented that the District Council, whilst supporting tenants, still expected them to pay rent. Mr R Wilson, Assistant Director of Housing Services, advised the Panel that it could take some time before legal action could be concluded. The Housing Act required a court order before a tenant was evicted. Members were concerned about tenant arrears and the periodic write-off of these arrears. The Director of Housing said that efforts were made to follow up tenants whereabouts. Mr A Hall added that the write-off of arrears was not an indicator. Mr R Wilson commented that if tenants re-appeared for re-housing, their arrears record may go against them. The Chairman said he was happy to re-examine this issue on an annual basis.

RESOLVED:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

(Director of Housing Services) to consider the attached report.

The Assistant Director of Housing, Mr R Wilson, presented a report regarding de-designation of properties from older people’s occupancy. Following some concerns raised by Members about the number of properties formerly designated specifically for occupation by older people on housing estates being let to younger people, the Housing Portfolio Holder had asked for this particular report to be submitted to the Panel for consideration.

During the mid-1980s, the Council had designated around 1,300 properties as specifically suitable for older people due to their size, type and location. These properties were exempt from the right to buy. The properties did not include sheltered housing for older people, which was not de-designated from older persons’ use.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s 176 properties had been removed from the list as they had proved unpopular with older people. There was also a growing need for small flats to be let to young, married couples. More recently, when vacancies occurred, designated properties for older people had proved even more difficult to let to older applicants. Under the old system of allocations, up to 10 offers were made and refused by this client group, resulting in void times increasing.

Following the introduction of the Choice Based Lettings Scheme in November 2007, designated properties for older people were advertised. In some cases no expressions of interests had been received, not even from older applicants in the lowest band. Many applicants who had expressed an interest often refused the offer of accommodation thus extending the void periods.

If any properties on the de-designated list proved difficult to let to older applicants, then applicants in the lowest bands (5 and 6) were advised of the opportunity of being possibly successful, should they express an interest. If no interest had been expressed then the age limit was reduced by 5 years from 60 to 55, and so on until it was eventually let. Currently 9.7% of applicants on the Housing Register were over 60, with 40% of applicants wanting one-bedroom accommodation. These statistics supported the Council’s decision to de-designate appropriate flats originally set aside for older persons’ use. Mr R Wilson commented that the Council often faced criticism when properties were left empty or let to younger people.

The Panel members had concern about the age mix of tenants on estates, there could be potential behavioural problems having younger tenants living next to older people. Mr R Wilson replied that the District Council could not leave properties empty simply because older people were not taking them up. The Council did what it could to let properties to older people but often there was no choice about letting to younger people. In response to a question regarding the designation of individual flats. Mr R Wilson said that the blocks of flats were designated block by block. Mr A Hall clarified to the Panel that officers were not proposing changes to the existing policy, just analysing the policy.

There was concern about transportation from the flats for older people,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

(Director of Housing Services) to consider the attached report.

The Assistant Director of Housing, Mr R Wilson, presented a report regarding ethnic monitoring of the Council’s Allocations Scheme. The Panel were advised that a large number of housing applicants did not disclose their ethnicity. However it was evident from the analyses shown in the officer’s report that the ethnic make up of the Housing Register mirrored the allocation of vacancies sufficiently for the Council to be confident that its Allocations Scheme did not racially discriminate.

RESOLVED:

That no recommendations be made concerning amendments to the Council’s Allocations Scheme due to ethnicity as current figures do not show a significant disparity between the ethnicity of applicants on the Housing register, and those allocated both general needs and sheltered accommodation through the Housing Register.

(Director of Housing Services) to consider the attached report.

The Director of Housing Services, Mr A Hall, advised that the Private Sector Housing Strategy report would be available for scrutiny in a few month’s time.

(Director of Housing) To consider the attached report and appendicies.

The Assistant Director of Housing, Mr R Wilson, presented a report to the Panel regarding Unauthorized Parking on Housing Estates. He said that parking was an on-going problem in the District and that he often received mixed messages from members of the District Council about parking concerns. Some members had contacted him requesting greater parking enforcement whilst other members were concerned with increased traffic overflow resulting from enforcement action.

The Panel were reminded that at its meeting in March 2008, they had agreed that the rule restricting the length of vehicular crossovers 6 metres rule should be extended to 12 metres, enabling more residents to be able to park one or more vehicles off road. Consultation had taken place with the Tenants and Leaseholders Federation as well: they had agreed with extending the 6 metre rule, but felt that residents should be required to use surfacing such as “grass crete” to maintain a green environment. They thought, as well, that enforcement action should be taken with immediate effect to remove vehicles from grass verges.

Councillor J Wyatt commented on weight limits to parking, there should be a 3.5 ton limit to parking. Mr R Wilson said that the Council already had this policy. He said that they will enforce parking restrictions. However they had limitations on their power, for example parking enforcement does not cover owner-occupiers; County Council Highways had greater enforcement powers; the District Council cannot enforce parking on highways. Members were advised that if there were any problems then they should report them to Housing who will action them. Councillor Mrs L Wagland commented that many complainants were concerned about neighbours’ parking and not about parking in general. There was not a clear set of enforcement rules, thereby consistency was a problem. She was concerned about the cost implications of enforcement, there may be fewer cars around in the future.

The Chairman commented that the approach needed to be flexible, some grass verges were not worth protecting whilst other verges were an amenity. There may, in some cases, be no alternative to removing a grass verge. Mr A Hall said he had come to the same conclusion and that Housing Officers needed to make judgements based on an agreed policy. A suggestion could be not to let people park on verges unless there was usually nowhere else to park within a reasonable distance. Councillor R Frankel agreed with Councillor Mrs L Wagland that the rules were inconsistent. He thought that areas should be designated as no parking with adequate signage. Some verges could be protected with grasscrete. He also added that it was unlikely that substantial numbers of cars would disappear from the roads. Councillor P Gode stated that a blanket policy was impossible; people aged mid-50 upwards, had fewer cars; there was often no public transport, leaving people reliant on cars. In flats most people had a car and flats had a smaller frontage than houses. The District Council needed to stop people parking on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

(Director of Housing) To consider the attached report.

The Assistant Director of Housing, Mr R Wilson, presented a report regarding a Review of Epping Forest Careline. Following the completion of the Best Value Service Review of Housing Services in February 2004, the review panel which was set up to oversee the review, agreed that the Careline Service provided a good service and it should be retained and reviewed again in 2007. The Review had been delayed while consideration was given to the possible introduction of a Customer Contact centre. The Careline Service offered a 24 hour, 365 days per year, emergency alarm system to older and disabled people living within the District, the service is also offered to other vulnerable groups including victims of domestic violence and young people with disabilities. Users of the service were connected via the telephone network. The Council’s own sheltered housing schemes and other designated dwellings for older people on housing estates had a hard wired system installed in their properties with a speech module mounted on the wall and pull cord in each of the rooms. A total of 2,500 properties, representing approximately 3,000 people, were linked to the service. Around 1,250 of the connections are private sector dwellings which were connected via a dispersal alarm. The user pays an annual rent to the Council for the service with the Council receiving a total income of around £136,000 per annum. The Council works in partnership with Essex County Council who provided the equipment free of charge to the Council and funded the first 12 weeks rental for the user.

The Council had introduced many further initiatives such as:

(a)        a disaster recovery plan which is an essential back up system

(b)               an on-going test programme ensuring all systems are working

(c)               maximum discounts to providers,

(d)               installation of a dispersed alarm system for new private clients within 2 working days of receiving the application,

(e)               monitoring of fire alarms within the sheltered housing schemes when the scheme manager is off duty,

(f)                 any residents nominated as “high risk” are called and accounted for every day,

(g)               installation of alarms at Council offices enhancing staff safety at homeless persons hostels; and

(h)               introduction of a pilot scheme where Careline users were visited when the number of calls received had increased to identify if they benefitted from any core or support services.

Mr R Wilson described the three options available to the Panel:

Option One – The Council to continue to provide the existing Local Service.

The advantages of this option was the District Council having greater control over the management of the service, including procedures for issues like keeping relatives up to date with incidents. A tenant satisfaction survey found that over half of the Council’s tenants were over 60 years of age and 1 in 3 were over 75. It was therefore an advantage to have a local service meeting future needs for an ageing population. Users become familiar with staff as the same individuals who visit them will also speak  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

(Direcor of Housing) To Consider the attached report.

The Assistant Director of Housing, Mr R Wilson, presented a report regarding the 6 month review of Choice Based Lettings. On 19 November 2007, Housing had introduced its new Choice Based Lettings Scheme, which was necessary for meeting Government requirements that such a scheme be in place by 2010 at the latest. The scheme’s implementation proved very successful, with the Council being in a position to go live in the first phase.

Under the Scheme, all vacant social rented properties were advertised to applicants on the Housing Register in a two weekly publication, via website and other media, giving details of location, type, rent, service charge, council tax band and landlord of the available accommodation. Applicants applied for a property by “expressing an interest” in up to a maximum of three properties for which they have an assessed need, either in person, by post, telephone, text, email or Internet. At the end of a two weekly cycle, the Council analysed the “expressions of interest” received and allocated each property following a prioritisation and selection process in accordance with its own Allocations Scheme. In general terms, the property is offered to the applicant in the highest band, who has been registered the longest. The results of the “expressions of interest” on each property advertised is then published in the next periodic publication, setting out the number received on each property, as well as the Band and registration date of the successful applicant. This helps applicants see how long the successful applicant has been waiting and gives greater transparency in the allocation of accommodation, as each applicant would be able to clearly understand how the scheme worked. There were 252 properties allocated during the period November 2007 to May 2008. Some properties were advertised on more than one occasion as they were difficult to let which had resulted in 469 advertisements being placed in the free sheets. There were 15,433 expressions of interest made, an average of around 33 expressions of interest each time a property was advertised. Most properties attracted in excess of 100 expressions of interest. Almost 86% of applicants expressing an interest over the internet; around 36% of applicants participated in the scheme during the first 6 months.

At its meeting on 22 January 2008, the Panel agreed that a survey be undertaken of all applicants on the Housing Register on their views on the new scheme. Two surveys were undertaken, one a questionnaire to all those who had participated in the Home Option Scheme and another survey to those that had yet to express an interest in any property. Around 2,660 survey questionnaires were sent to those who had not participated in the scheme, with responses being received from 726 applicants (27%). It was of some concern that 220 applicants had stated that they were not aware of the Home Option Scheme. This inferred that there was potentially around 800 applicants (20% of all applicants on the Housing Register) not being aware of the Scheme. The survey also  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

To consider which reports are ready to be submitted to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at its next meeting.

A verbal report was to be made to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

To note the forward programme of meeting dates for the Panel. They are:

9^th October 2008;

8^th January 2009; and

26^th March 2009.

1.         The next meeting of the Housing Scrutiny Panel was on 9 October 2008. There was a gypsy traveller report scheduled to be discussed at the meeting. However it was felt that this report might overload the meeting so it would go to the 8 January 2009 meeting instead.

2.         That a Housing Information Evening for members be tagged on the end of the October 2008 meeting.