Agenda and minutes

There were no declarations of interest.

Broadcast of the meeting

The Deputy Mayor announced that the meeting was being broadcast live to the Internet and may be filmed by members of the press or public.  Those speaking at the meeting were deemed to be agreeing to being recorded and broadcast.

Procedure in relation to Item 5

The Chair proposed, and the Council agreed, the following procedure for consideration of Item 5 on the agenda:-

·         Councillor Simon to have 5 minutes to explain why his group had asked for the extraordinary meeting.

·         30 minutes for questions and comments from Members, with each speaker being allowed up to 5 minutes.

·         5 minutes for the Cabinet Member for Better Homes to close the debate.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Ali, Aref-Adib, Cotton, Headlam-Wells, Khatoon, Mulholland, Simpson and Tiwari.  Apologies for lateness were received from Councillors Boyland, Greenwood, Revah and Thompson.

Requests to address the Council or to present a petition on the matter for which the meeting has been called.

The Deputy Mayor announced that there had been one deputation request in respect of the meeting, but this had been declined as it was received after the deadline for submission of deputation requests and there would be opportunity to request a deputation to the Housing Scrutiny Committee on this topic shortly.

Report of the Borough Solicitor

In line with the procedure agreed under Item 2, Councillor Simon addressed the Council and explained why the Liberal Democrat Group had requested an extraordinary meeting of the Council, as summarised in the report on the agenda.

Members of the Council then made comments as summarised below:-

·         The situation with the housing repairs service had been going on for much too long and the Housing Ombudsman had now found poor communication and systemic inefficiency.

·         Reporting on complaints annually to the Resources and Corporate Performance Scrutiny Committee was insufficient to address the scale of the issue and the Council should publish all adjudications, as well as its response to the Ombudsman’s findings, on its website.

·         The Housing Scrutiny Committee had undertaken considerable scrutiny of housing services and had made a number of recommendations that had since been taken forward. 

·         The Housing Scrutiny Committee had requested a report on the Ombudsman’s findings to its January Committee but the Council was still working with the Ombudsman on its responses to the recommendations at that point and so it was not the right time to take a report.

·         Had there been any analysis of the data on complaints relating to housing and were there any initial findings?

·         Some residents were using the complaints process instead of the normal reporting routes so work was needed to prevent the complaints system becoming the default way of engaging with the Council.

·         Some of the cases referenced by the Ombudsman related to vulnerable residents and those with disabilities.  What action was being taken to improve support for these residents and would proposals be taken to the Disability Oversight Panel?

·         Initiatives like Residents Action Days and tenants’ conferences were important tools for enabling the Council to see issues from the perspective of residents and enabling those residents to feel involved in the plans to improve their properties.  How could these kinds of events be embedded into the culture of the housing department moving forward.

·         There had been a noticeable improvement in communications in relation to faults and repairs recently.

·         The current culture around repairs was too complacent and led to work having to be repeated.

·         Why was there not already a system to log and monitor repairs to make sure that they were carried out in a timely way?

·         Successive Cabinet Members had worked hard to manage the decline of the Council’s housing stock but this had been made more difficult as a result of changes and reforms undertaken by previous governments.  It had been almost impossible to invest in housing stock and there had been significant staff reductions, making it difficult to provide an adequate service and respond to complaints in a timely manner.

·         There would be no quick fix to the problem of social housing across the country.  It would take a culture change and a renewed respect for social housing.

·         Leaseholders were also impacted by inadequacies in the complaints and repairs systems and the leaseholder satisfaction scores reflected this, but work was taking place to implement  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.