Agenda item - Public Involvement

To consider the following matters raised by members of the public:

 

(a)       Written Questions: to receive any questions submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 20 September 2018.  Note: questions should only relate to Item 34 – Options for Future Delivery of Housing Repairs, Planned Maintenance and Capital Works.

 

(b)   Deputations: to receive any deputations submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 20 September 2018.  Note: deputations should only relate to Item 34 – Options for Future Delivery of Housing Repairs, Planned Maintenance and Capital Works.

 

Petitions

 

32.1     There were no petitions. 

 

Questions

 

32.2     Barry Hughes asked the following question:

 

“The recommendations of the report indicate a minimum of £20m per annum being spent on procurement from private contractors with a further £1.8m of the “in-house” budget being used to pay for sub-contractors.

Ø  Could the Committee explain how this justifies any claim that the Future Delivery of Housing Repairs, Planned Maintenance and Capital Works is to be brought “in-house?”

32.3     The Chair replied as follows: 

       

“Thank you for your question. The report sets out a series of recommendations for the future delivery of responsive repairs and empty property refurbishments, planned maintenance and improvement programmes and major projects to council housing stock.

The report does not claim to bring all services in house. However the recommendations are to bring customer service, quality assurance, responsive repairs and empty property refurbishments in house following the end of the current contract.

This is a significant change in the delivery of the service and represents over 30,000 repair jobs per year and 3,000 repair calls every month and covers the main front line service that residents receive. The report also sets out that this in house delivery will need to be supported by sub-contractors to manage the peaks and troughs that naturally exist when delivering a repairs service and that this would make up 20% of responsive repairs and 50% of empty properties works. This is similar to the level of sub-contacting on the current contract arrangements and reflects that this is the level of staff that would have the right to transfer to the council if this recommendation is agreed.

The report also states that it may be possible to reduce the level of sub-contracting over time.

The report sets out the benefits and risks of an option for the delivery of some planned maintenance and improvement programmes through an in house team, however this is not a recommended option as many planned maintenance and large capital works are specialist and involve spend for items such as scaffolding which would be unsuitable to deliver in-house.”

32.4     Mr Hughes asked the following supplementary question:

 

            “I see that making up that £1.8M are sub-contractor costs for empty properties of 50%.  Whilst this is a reduction on the current level, I would ask if the Committee requires that all empty properties are inspected by a housing officer prior to being released as this will ensure that usable contents can be recycled by estate services for tenants in need.”

 

32.5   The Chair stated that the Committee agreed with Mr Hughes statement. 

 

32.6     RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

32.7     Nichole Brennan asked the following question on behalf of David Thomas:

 

 “Paragraph 1.7 states that “Feedback from numerous stakeholders has enabled the council’s programme team to develop a set of clear strategic objectives for the future delivery of the services” including; “Increased transparency, control and accountability around cost, programme information and quality assurance”

Ø  Could the Committee please explain how increased transparency and accountability is to be achieved? This is particularly important given the press statements issued around the report and the refusal of the Chairperson to receive a deputation on this issue at the last Committee meeting?”

32.8     The Chair replied as follows: 

 

“Thank you for your question. The council has consulted extensively with stakeholders ahead of developing these options for the future delivery of services and works.

As you have set out some of the key feedback was around transparency and accountability. Stakeholders wanted to see a more transparent demonstration of competitive tendering on a project by project basis for major capital projects – something that setting up our own framework for these works will be able to deliver because of the opportunities to get quotes from different contractors at the time of starting individual projects.

The report also sets out that the council will be responsible for customer service, quality assurance, contract management, procurement processes and quantity surveying giving much greater accountability to the council for the successful delivery of projects. This will be a change to the current service and increase the resource level to the council in checking the quality of works delivered.

I also note your comments around the deputation submitted to the last Housing & New Homes committee and would reiterate that the subject of this deputation was not a matter for this committee. As the council has advised, that deputation could be submitted for the next full Council meeting on the 18th October; the deadline for which is Friday 12th October at 12 noon.”

       

32.9    RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

           

32.10    Daniel Harris asked the following question:

 

“Paragraph 2.4  recommends approving “the procurement of at least one contract for the provision of planned maintenance and improvement programmes to council housing stock with a term of five years with the option to extend for up to a further two years”

Paragraph 2.5 recommends approving “the procurement of a multi-contractor framework agreement for major capital projects with a term of four years”

Ø  Other than the time period of 5/7 or 4 years in what way can this recommendation be seen as a break with shoddy, over-priced, and sometimes unnecessary work under the present contract and as the issue of potential fraud and lessons from actual fraud are not referred to in the report how to the Committee intend to deal with this problem to ensure this never happens again?” 

 

32.11    The Chair replied as follows: 

 

“This report is clear that whilst there have been challenges with the current contract there have also been successes. Bringing all of the council housing stock up to the government’s decent homes standard was a key objective of the contract and has been successfully achieved and maintained.

The report also reflects the recommendations of the independent review of the contract that was discussed by this committee in June this year.

The report recommendations also set out that moving forward the council will be responsible for customer service, quality assurance, contract management, procurement processes and quantity surveying giving much greater accountability to the council for the successful delivery of projects as residents have requested.

The framework proposed for major capital projects will bring further competition into the process for each project and the report sets out that planned works will be let in a series of lots that may be attractive to small and medium local businesses.

There will also be separate procurement processes for the framework as well as planned maintenance and improvement contracts. These will be run in line with EU procurement law.”

32.12    Mr Harris noted that about a third would come in-house, when it was thought that it would all come in-house which was unsatisfactory. He challenged the Chair on the decent homes standards that were stated as a success. Mr Harris informed the Committee that his mother and her partner lived in a council home. It was like looking at two separate flats. One flat had been brought into the new century and the other flat was 30 or 40 years old. Mr Harris stated that there had been issues with the Mears contract for years. They had said that things would be done and people did come out but work did not actually take place. Mr Harris asked the Chair to comment on the fact that only 1% of Seaside Community Homes tenants took part in the survey. He would like to have seen that they would have had more of a say within the consultation. 

 

32.13  The Chair thanked Mr Harris for his supplementary question. She stated that the government guidelines on decent home standards were being achieved by the council. There were issues around different works that are being done. Some works needed to be carried out on a health and safety basis, so they might be carried forward ahead of the planned maintenance and improvement programme. That was why sometimes there could be two different assessments in the quality of the home. The Council are working to that and if Mr Harris’ mother or her partner wished to ask for something new then they would need to go through the channels and ask the council. 

 

32.14  RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

32.15 David Croydon asked the following question:

 

“Paragraph 3.49 states that the “in-house” contract will require 58 workers and 34 managers

Ø  Does the Committee believe this to be a realistic ratio of workers to managers or is it one of the arguments to be used against even a small percentage of the work/budget for the Delivery of Housing Repairs, Planned Maintenance and Capital Works being withdrawn from private companies?”

 

32.16    The Chair replied as follows: 

       

“Thank you for your question. The report sets out at 3.47 that the estimated staffing levels would be 58 operatives and 34 “management and administrative support staff” for the delivery of responsive repairs and empty properties. The majority of the estimated 34 staff are not managers at all. In fact in the estimates in the report there are only 10 managers in the 92 staff working on the in house service. This is in line with the council’s desired management spans of control on 1 to 7”

32.17    Mr Croydon asked the following supplementary question:

            “Was that the ratio that Mears had, and if it was, does that explain some of the costs that they have passed on to us?

           

32.18  The Chair explained that it was an estimate of the spans of control on 1 to 7.  

 

32.19  RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

32.20    Maria Garrett-Gotch asked the following question:

 

 ““Paragraph 2.6 “Notes that the specialist works will continue to be delivered through individual contracts, with reports coming back to committee for authority to procure and award such contracts if required in accordance with the council’s Constitution”

Ø  As this process has been shown to be at best controversial and at worst against the interests of residents and an unnecessary burden on Council finances why have lessons learnt not been applied? Even at the current time residents are expressing deep concern over the “Fire Alarm System Servicing, Maintenance, Design, and Installation” long term contract.”

 

32.21    The Chair replied as follows: 

 

          “Thank you for your question. You are correct that the report recommends that specialist services will continue to be delivered through individual contracts. However I don’t recognise your comments about the services being an unnecessary burden on the council. For example our specialist Gas contractor has ensured that we have been 100% compliant on gas safety for a number of years and our service contract for legionella testing has operated successfully for a number of years.

The report is not seeking to make any changes to the process as this is separate to the current arrangements that are being considered. Committee will have the chance to review the strategy for each specialist contract in the same way as it does now, with reports for each contract requiring sign off coming to this committee.”

 

32.22    Ms Garrett-Gotch stated that she would like to challenge what the Chair said about gas safety works in council properties. She was a Whitehawk resident of 10 years and had had a faulty boiler for three years which was not put in place properly and had been seen as dangerous. The Chair asked Ms Garrett-Gotch if she had reported the fault and Ms Garrett-Gotch confirmed that she had reported the fault numerous times

 

32.23  RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

32.24    John Hadman asked the following question:

 

“Paragraph 4.3 of the ‘trowers & hamlins’ report provides an option of a “Wholly-Owned Subsidiary (and Managed Service)” and claims that “This is an innovative option where employees are engaged by BHCC but treated as part of contractor's supply-chain and managed by the contractor” and of the 268 pages that comprise the report as a whole at least 200 are provided by “consultants” from the private sector

 

Ø  Does the Committee regard a “wholly-owned subsidiary” as just another way of forcing through privatisation and does the Committee accept the domination of “consultants” as undue influence by those who profit from the proposals they support?”

32.25    The Chair replied as follows: 

 

          “Thank you for your question. Officers and Councillors through the Procurement Advisory Board have looked at a wide range of delivery options for these services in great detail. One of the options we looked at was a Wholly Owned Subsidiary, however this was discounted for the reasons set out in paragraph 4.57 of the report. We have committed to being transparent throughout this process and that is why all of the options are set out in so much detail here and why we have shared the work that consultants have done to support officers and members in this process.

As part of the information gathering process and research for the programme council officers have also visited other local authority housing departments to share best practice and information. Many of these other authorities have also engaged consultants and industry experts to support in similar circumstances to the council.

Consultants have been helpful in providing detailed options and costs of models using their wide industry knowledge. Members fed back how helpful this has been in developing understanding of the different models available. I would be clear though that these are the council’s reports and recommendations not the consultants.”

32.26    Mr Hadman asked the following supplementary question:

 

            “Is it a back door privatisation”.  

 

32.27  The Chair confirmed that it was not back door privatisation.   

 

32.28  RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

32.29    Jim Deans asked the following question:

 

“We are facing a housing crisis in the city yet we see many properties, council owned lying empty for many months. How many council homes are "empty"...whether it is waiting for refurbishment or otherwise? These properties are under the control and timescale of Mears and the current contract with them.... How many are more than 3 months empty? What has been the turn round times in empty properties?”

 

32.30    The Chair replied as follows: 

 

          “Thank you for your question. The committee receives a regular performance update which gives detail on the management of our empty properties and how quickly these are being refurbished and re-let.

At this time there are 67 council properties that are empty, our total stock is 11,550. These properties will be at different points in the re-letting cycle. Some will be under refurbishment and some will be ready to let.

Of the 67 properties, 17 have been empty for longer than three months. This is made up of:

·                  9 Seniors housing properties

·                  5 undergoing major works

·                  3 undergoing normal refurbishment work

On average our regular properties are empty for 21 calendar days, our key to key empty period including properties which have major works or extensions is 56 days. This information was reported to committee on the 19^th September and is available on our website.”

32.31    Mr Deans asked the following supplementary question:  

 

            “Would this committee consider the following suggestions. Allow a taskforce to be created which would be a mixture of professionals, volunteers and the   homeless themselves for a project driven by a local charity with no financial axe to grind but the sole purpose of reducing the homeless crisis. This force would turn around empty properties to the agreed living standard moving between properties just like private landlords do in the city. Does this Committee agree that we now have to think outside the box when it comes to tackling the housing crisis”?

 

32.32  The Chair thanked Mr Deans for his ideas and suggestions. They would be taken back for discussion. 

 

32.33  RESOLVED- That the Public question be noted.

 

Deputations

 

32.34  There were no deputations.