Bolney Meadow Local Scrutiny Panel (LSP)

Bolney Meadow Local Scrutiny Panel (LSP)

Minutes of meeting held on 19th July 2017 at 6:00pm

Meeting room, Bolney Meadow Community Centre, 31 Bolney Street, London SW8 1EL

Chair: (MO)

Vice Chair: (OB)

Residents: (LV) (AL),(KS), (LT)

Apologies:(PP)

NHHT (PRH): (ZP) – Housing Operations Manager

(VB) – minute taker

Guests: (C) – Engagement Manager (South Lambeth)

(L) – Project Manager (South Lambeth)

Welcome and introduction

The Chair opened the meeting with introductions.

1. South Lambeth Regeneration

C* and L* presented an update on the South Lambeth regeneration project.

The planning application will be submitted in August, with details of the first phase of the development and an outline of the remaining phases. The plan will detail the parameters of the development e.g. then number of stories of each block.

C* noted that the new block named housing blocks will now step back but will increase in height from 11 floors to 16. There will also be works to the bottom of named house, as it currently only has one entrance, so an extra entrance will be added along with a small communal green area.

A number of blocks will be reduced in floors and the new blocks will have private gardens and communal gardens. The shops will be relocated to serve current blocks and the new ones.

Leaseholders will be moved in the regeneration; those that want to stay on the estate are negotiating with Lambeth. Those that want to move back will be offered shared ownership with no rent agreements, meaning the equity they currently have will be converted into a percentage of equity in the new property.

After consultation, the majority of older residents would like to remain with their neighbours and not be moved into sheltered properties.

With regards to building material C* confirmed there is no cladding on the new blocks but there is cladding on the bookends of named housing block, but all materials have been tested in light of Grenfell Estate and the highest standard of building regulations are being followed.

The timescale has shifted slightly but it will depend on the planning application. Each phase has been scheduled for 18 months. The architects are working on views and sketches and there will be more detail on how the buildings will look in the planning application which will be available to view in a possible ‘fun day’ in September for residents.

C*also provided the panel with comparison information on the size of new and current flats; noting that any residents currently living in a studio will be given a 1 bedroom flat. All properties will have some outdoor space whether it isa garden, balcony or terrace; and there will also be a mixture of open plan and closed plan kitchen, depending on the size of the unit.

There are still ongoing discussions with NHH over the purchase of the caretaker’s unit. It is still being decided if NHH can swap ownership of the caretaker’s unit for a number of other units or land.

2. Minutes of last meeting and matters arising

2.1 Matters arising

The panel have agreed the minutes of the meeting will not be included in the pack as they are sent out earlier after the meeting.

2.2 Actions list

The majority of actions were completed.

ACTION: ZP to issue the panel with NHH’s definition of ‘management transfer’.

Please see the end of these minutes where the appropriate section of the Transfers policy has been reproduced containing this information.

2.2.1 CCTV Survey

The Contract Operations Manager has been on leave for 3 weeks, so an update has not been available.

ACTION: ZP to provide an update from the Contract Operations Manager on the CCTV survey of blockage outside named housing scheme.

2.2.2Lighting

Named housing scheme was excluded from the information sheet but ZP was informed works had been completed.

OB pointed out there are 2 external lampposts near named housing blocks that have not worked for several years.

ACTION: Update from E on the 10 lighting issues raised by MO and external lampposts between named housing schemes

2.2.3 Parking

The panel agreed the proposals in the parking report would not go down well with residents.

KS explained that although the panel had previouslyhighlighted someissues with parking out ofbays out of hours, it was to ask Notting Hill to explore whether there wasfurther evidence of problems. However, Notting Hill had not had concernsreported from residents andPCN have not been able toprovide evidence. ZP clarified that although NHH have asked PCN for such information they do not pay fees to PCN and are therefore PCN are not tied to a contractual agreement to provide such information. KS iterated that she felt that we should not propose significant changes without evidence.

AL noted the large number of commercial vans on the estate and queried the number of NHH staff parking on the estate. ZP responded that only she and the K&T supervisor have permits. No other NHH member of staff is permitted to park on the estate.

The panel has agreed to drop the topic of parking from future agendas for the time being as there is no significant evidence of problems and if residents do make complaints to panel members, they should be encouraged to contact their housing officer.

3. Performance Report

3.1 Customer Satisfaction

OB queried ‘the most important things we know impacts on overall satisfaction:’ ZP clarified that when a customer is surveyed they are asked what areas are most important to them.

ACTION: ZP to provide a list of what issues matter the most to residents in the customer satisfaction survey.

MO queried how the ‘neighbourhood as a place to live’ reflected on the housing officer performance. ZP explained that as there are too many variables outside of the housing officers’ controlshe focuses on other criteria during appraisal.

ACTION: ZP to send customer satisfaction comments every quarter.

3.2 Estate Management

The panel noted Bolney Meadow Estate was one of the best performing areas

3.3 Rental Income and Collection

ZP gave further details on the arrears graph; the arrears target is based on the year-end figure (purple bar) and as there is a 4 week benefits cycle it allows for comparable figures. ZP believed that with the end of the last financial year, housing officers may have stepped back slightly resulting in a slight rise in the most recent arrears figures. In addition, the introduction of Universal Credit is causing major problems across teams.

The arrears figures for western boroughs i.e. Kensington & Chelsea and Hammersmith have historically been less than for boroughs in the north, south and east.

ACTION: Panel have requested the new style of performance reports for the next pack.

3.4 Voids

The meeting with Lambeth Council was postponed.

The aim is to have housing officers verify nominees which will cut waiting times down as Lambeth Council do not pre-verify, unlike many other borough councils.

KS queried why nominees would reject a property once it has been viewed if the advertisement clearly describes the property. ZP explained some nominees are given direct offers and therefore only know the details of the property upon viewing it. In addition, the number of properties a nominee can reject depends on the borough.

ZP has made a recommendation to the senior management team to review the nomination agreements between NHH and borough councils as many of them were set up a number of years ago.

3.5 Repairs

OB noted the trend in ‘% of repairs completed on time i.e. within 20 working days of logged date’ should be “improved” not “declined “ from January to June.

The panel suggested the table showing KPIs for Bolney Meadow should show ‘N/A’ if there is no sample rather than “0%”.

ZP explained that the sample of the repairs survey is for residents who have recently had a repair and is specific to that repair and is usually made up of 5 residents a week.

The housing officer is expected to contact residents once a repair has been completed.

ACTION: ZP to investigate why out of the 25 repairs completed in June, none were selected a part of the sample group.

3.6 Complaints

KS would prefer, if the number of complaints is so low, that percentages are not used as theyare misleading.

3.7 ASB

The panel were happy with the added detail on the ASB which the new database provides but would welcome more background in line with ZP‘s query in the report .

ZP expressed her concerns with signs of gangs on the estate.

ACTION: ZP to provide more information on the ASB cases mentioned in the pack

OB asked about the mobile CCTV provided by Lambeth and SMT on the estate.

ACTION: ZP to ask housing officers about the mobile CCTV and training for officers to use it.

AL mentioned the CCTV that will be installed in the named housing block lifts as a result of the urination in the lift; it may pick up any drug dealing.

4. Leasehold Service Charge

Althoughit is unpopular with Boleyn Meadow leaseholders, ZP expressed the importance of a sinking fund as it minimises the risk of leaseholders having to pay a large lump sum of money for major works.

AL expressed concerns on the number of costing letters she received for last year’s charges with different amounts from the final costing from her bank. ZP apologised and explained the error was due to incorrect configuration of the spreadsheet that was used. However, NHH’s Workwise programme is looking at service charges and will provide a more accurate costing system.

ZP explained that although leaseholders are being massively undercharged, there will not be an increase in service charge at year-end and the debt will most likely be written off.

The Bolney Meadow housing officers are now looking at each charge quarterly rather than waiting until year-end. M&E, Estate Services and other service departments relating to the estate are being asked to meet with housing officers to ensure the accuracy is improved.

KS asked if there were any other blocks that were mixed tenure properties, with PRH housing officers managing leaseholders. ZP replied named housing blocks are all managed in the same way as Bolney Meadow Estate. Discussions are happening on the management of new developments.

5. Leaseholder Engagement

The panel expressed concerns over the way leaseholders are informed of basic estate issues.

It was agreed general living information should be shared more easily with all residents e.g. through leaflets, or ‘Dear resident/occupants’ letters. Historically tenants of leasehold properties will not open letters addressed to the leaseholder. Or,more often than not, leaseholders will forget to share small bits of information with their tenants.

ACTION: ZP will present the point to provide general living information through leaflets or ‘Dear resident’ letters to the Policy & Leasehold forum.

6. Fire Update

Although named housing blocksis the only block that has 6 floors, it is concrete based; so there is no need for cladding inspections.

ACTION: ZP to provide completion dates for the guttering and jetting works.

ACTION: ZP to find out why named contractor fixed one of the external lights MO listed in his email rather M&E.

Across the organisation, fire safety will be promoted; and at the moment the main priority is to ensure material testing, in particular cladding testing is complete.

LT expressed her appreciation of the email from the Resident Involvement Team regarding fire safety.

7. Northern Line Extension

AL updated the panel that surveyors have attended some properties.

8. Agree Agenda

The panel will meet and will discuss the next agenda.

9. LSP Chairs’ ScrutinyReview meetings

No update from the Chair yet as the first meeting was postponed .

The LSP chairs will meet to review the scrutiny panels for the first time next week.

10. AOB

ET has been appointed the new Head of Region, and will start once she is back from maternity leave. NC will be the interim Head until then.

ZP updated the panel on the named Tenant’s Association. The association would like to take some of the parking spaces on Fentiman Road and replace them with planting areas. They also want works to the bin stores and have the shops on Clapham Road change their store fronts.

ZP has informed the association they must recruit a tenant from named scheme, so the interest and needs of NHH’s tenants are included.

The panel have been asked to encourage residents to join the association.

Action list

Point / Action / Assignee
2.2 / ZP to issue the panel with NHH’s definition of ‘management transfer’. / ZP
2.2.1 / ZP to provide an update from the Contract Operations Manager on the CCTV survey of blockage outside named scheme. / ZP
2.2.2 / Update from Elizabeth on the 10 lighting issues raised by MO and external lampposts between named schemes / EN
3.1 / ZP to provide a list of what issues matter the most to residents in the customer satisfaction survey. / ZP
3.1 / ZP to send customer satisfaction comments every quarter. / ZP
3.3 / Panel have requested the new style of performance reports for the next pack. / ZP
3.5 / ZP to investigate why out of the 25 repairs completed in June, none were selected a part of the sample group. / ZP
3.7 / ZP to ask housing officers about the mobile CCTV and training for officers to use it. / ZP
3.7 / ZP to provide more information on the ASB cases mentioned in the pack / ZP
5 / ZP will present the point to provide general living information through leaflets or ‘Dear resident’ letters to the Policy & Leasehold forum. / ZP
6 / ZP to provide completion dates for the guttering and jetting works. / ZP
6 / ZP to find out why named contractor fixed one of the external lights MO listed in his email rather than M&E. / ZP

Management transfer

4.1What is a Management Transfer?

4.1.1In exceptional cases where the safety and well being of a resident and/or a member of their household is at risk, they may be considered for a management transfer. As a responsible landlord, Notting Hill will support residents who have been accepted for a management transfer to move quickly and safely.

4.1.2A management transfer gives residents priority over other residents on the transfer list to enable an urgent move. Management transfers will be given an A or B banding, depending on how urgently they need to move.

4.1.3Management transfers can be given for a variety of reasons, for example:

• Domestic violence
• Harassment
• Neighbour dispute
• Family breakdown
• What to do if a customer needs a Management Transfer
• If a customer needs to move urgently the Housing Officer should discuss the case with their Housing Operations Manager and decide together if the case is urgent enough to warrant a management transfer.
• The Housing Operations manager must complete the Transfer Approval Form stating the Policy grounds that the Management Transfer is based on. This must be signed by two Housing Operations Managers.
• If the Management Transfer is Approved
• If the management transfer is approved the Housing Officer should write to the customer to let them know that it has been approved and what band they have been given, using these letters:

• Band A Management Transfer Approval Letter
• Band B Management Transfer Approval Letter
• If they have been given a Band A, inform them that they will have six months to bid for a property and after that will be made one reasonable direct offer of a new home, and that they can carry on bidding on Locata in the meantime.
• If they have been given a Band B they will need to bid for homes through Locata

Page 1 of 9

Page 1 of 9