Nottinghillhousing Group

NOTTINGHILLHOUSING GROUP

Hammersmith& FulhamLocalScrutinyPanelMeeting

Minutesof meetingheldon05 September 2017

Present:InterimChair:

(PB)

Residents:

(AB, (NGM), (FHA), (MPN), (JQ), (JS), (SV), (LV)

Leasehold:

(TN)Leasehold Manager, Team 4

PermanentRented:

(KM)Housing manager, Team 5

(CJF)Housing Manager, Team 7

(AC)Regional Head of Housing

Resident Involvement:

(DE) Senior Involvement Officer

Additional Staff Members:

(LD) PA to Director of NHHO

Observers:

(FT)

Apologies:(SG), (JF) (Housing Manager, Team 6)

Circulation:All

1a. / Housekeeping, minutes of last meeting & matters arising
1a.1
1a.2
1a.3
1a.4
1a.5
1a.6
1a.7 / PO opened the meeting and advised that there is no fire drill planned for this evening.
PO advised the panel that due to health reasons, EA has stepped down from Chair and would no longer be a member of the panel. The panel expressed gratitude for EA’s service and a card was signed from the panel wishing EA well and thanking her for her time as Chair.
PO apologised on behalf of those that could not attend.
CJF advised that an error had occurred in the papers and names and addresses were included. PO advised the panel to please respect the confidentiality agreement and new papers were issued to all attendees rectifying the issue.
Re: action 2.1 – PO asked DEif SL would become a member. DE responded that he would chase up a response.
PO welcomed FT, a resident and observer who may become a member in future.
The minutes were agreed and no additional comments were made.
2a. / Performance Report – Permanent Rented Housing
2a.1
2a.2
2a.3
2a.4
2a.5
2a.6
2a.7
2a.8
2a.9
2a.10
2a.11
2a.12
2a.13
2a.14
2a.15
2a.16
2a.17
2a.18
2a.19
2a.20
2a.21
2a.22 / FHA asked PRH managers to clarify their teams. Please see attendee list for details.
CJF advised that there have been some patch changes. The number of Housing Officers per patch has reduced from 10 to 9. Regular staff turnover has allowed for PRH to shuffle patches and tweak how they are organised. Performance so far has been positive and HOs have taken to it really well.
Estate inspections have improved and are exceeding target. The teams are on track to meet debt target. The report details top 10 arrears and the action being taken, which are all at the appropriate stages.
PO asked how close monitoring is affecting Housing Managers. CJF explained that it’s not an extra task, there has just been more of a focus on it so it hasn’t affected workload significantly. MPN advised that as a resident monitor, he has been working with HOs and CJF on this.KM added that there has been a number of new staff members which have needed additional support as they ease into their roles. PO commented that it’s great to see improvement in overall performance.
AB noted that team 6 are the worst performing borough for cleaning and asked if the data is meaningful with such marginal differences. CFJ agreed that it is marginal, but could look at if it was of particular interest.
FHA commented that staff shortages appear to be a common reason for tasks not being completed. CJF advised that due to temps covering roles and holiday absences, this does have an affect on consistency of service, however the number of temps is being reduced.
AB commented that during the last meeting, a number of panel members raised questions about staffing but the responses were dismissive and informative. The panel would like to understand staff issues. CJF responded that they can include staffing changes in the report. AC apologised for the unsatisfactory responses at the last meeting and explained that they have floating HOs to manage peaks and troughs in staff turnover. They’ve also looked at how they recruit and where they recruit from to get candidates through quicker.
PO asked if the high turnover has been investigated. AC explained that due to the number of HOs in PRH, turnover is likely to be higher than other businesses. AC added that the majority of people moving are tend to be staying within NHH, but are just looking for new opportunities as part of their personal progression.
JS asked if it’s possible that performance isn’t consistent across officers, and could you move high performing HOs to lesser performing patches. CF responded that this was part of the proposal when shuffling the teams.
MPN asked if HOs are now responsible for more properties. AC confirmed that their patches are 145 properties each. Patches previously were split by buildings, however now they are customer split.
SV asked what NHH does to retain staff. CJF advised that it starts from the induction process. The induction is designed to slowly introduce the role to staff including elements of shadowing and a thorough training programme to help themget their head around the role. New starters are matched with other HOs, in a buddy system. We have found that having that support makes a big difference. KM added that acknowledging good work in team meetings, 1:1s, and on the floor also helps. KM added that whilst there are a number of reasons for the turnover, it’s mostly for good reasons and not negative ones.
FHA commented that she was worried about the impact on residents when they get attached to their HO. CJF acknowledged this and explained that NHH try to minimise the impact with a handover process. The new HO should send a letter first to introduce them and will follow up with a face to face meeting as soon as possible to build the relationship and provide comfort during the change.
AB commented that it’s tough to keep on top of arrears and congratulated the team for their results. However, on reporting, it didn’t appear clear inn the commentary what was going on for ATB 6 and ATB 7 and would like more consistency in the arrears detail, using ATB 5’s reporting as a good example. CJF Agreed.PO added that the practical solutions were very useful.
PO asked if encouraging downsizing could be considered across all boroughs. CFJ explained that Tenancy Support Network had piloted a programme to do this and they could look at doing this again.
MH asked for an update on Pay to Stay. AC informed that no decision has been made on this, and thinks that the LSP should be included in shaping it if when it becomes an available option.
FHA asked if HOs had champions in their teams. KMK advised that there are champions that cover across the floor who have attended specific training to become experts on an individual topic, such as Universal Credit.
CJF highlighted that ATB 6 had the best turnaround for standard relets last quarter. 21 voids have been deliberately put on hold for the families affected by the Grenfell incident. Void loss to be included in the next papers.
CJF advised thatstage one complaints stats are good, however reviews haven’t been handled so well, in terms of quality. Peer-to-peer reviews have been put in place to improve this. Spending more time putting reviews together and speaking with residents. They are over target, but they are better quality which has been the focus at the moment.
AB requested a focus on the performance issues of ATB 6. Requested a briefing on all team performance issues and proposed solutions.
AB commented on the continued issues with the repairs contract and mentioned the impact this must have had on staff. Requested a detailed update in the next report.
PO asked what reviewing and may move to 80%. The Leadership Factor have given some comparisons with our new measurable and we will confirm at the next meeting what the target is.
FHA commented that ATB 6 were worst performing team for “housing officer is friendly and approachable” and asked if this could be due to staff turnaround. CFHresponded yes this could possibly be due to the number of temps quality of the temps coming in through the recruitment consultants.
1b.1 / 6 week update
1b.2 / Re: action point 1, narrative incomplete.
2b. / Performance Reports - Leasehold
2b.1
2b.2
2b.3
2b.4
2b.5
2b.6
2b.7
2b.8
2b.9
2b.10
2b.11
2b.12
2b.13 / TN highlighted that satisfaction remains the same, however there’s been marginal improvement in how PMOs deal with queries. Leasehold have invested in two new extra coordination roles to support PMOs, which may be the reason for marginal increase.
TN advised that from looking at verbatim comments, he found that around 36% commented on service charge. This is likely the reason why satisfaction is low, and we could look at how to better educate customers on this.
PO asked why satisfaction is sow low compares to PRH. SV commented that it could be their expectation is different as they are paying customers. TN added that a lot more education is needed. AB commented that as leaseholders pay for their services, when they are dissatisfied they resent having to pick up the work that isn’t covered due to bad service. They will expect the landlord to manage that service better. Longer term residents have a lot of history to compare and contrast.
AB commented that he liked the new format of new charts. TN will recirculate actual top ten by borough (issues with printing).
PO asked why we wouldseek possession on a low amount. TN advised that it’s usually due to it being a recurring arrears issue, but the mortgage provider will have paid off previous arrears amounts and is no longer willing to pay.
TN advised that it’s likely arrears will spike again due to the cyclical nature of accounts.
TN highlighted that repairs are down to 64%. He advised that if a part is needed for something, the times are affected and this can lower stats.
Leasehold don’t have a dedicated repairs contract, but are looking at changing this. NHH have a project called Workwise that is about changing the business’s digital face and repairs is a top priority on this.
Complaints are at 100%. Estate inspections are also at 100%.
AB commented that customer satisfaction is higher than it was previously and it was much lower a few years ago. It’s an achievement that it’s been maintained at this level, however would like to see us working towards PRH targets eventually.
JS asked how inspections are going. TN advised that they are going well, staff fill in a detailed questionnaire to show actions against each property. TN advised that Leasehold are looking to be able to show leaseholders the updated property actions via the app.
JS would like to see results of inspections. PO asked if that would that be covered in customer sat results. TN confirmed.
NG commented that there’s a disparity on customer satisfaction results and the graph showing repairs and maintenance in communal areas.
4 / Discussion Topic: Complaint
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6 / DF presented and the group split into two to discuss the complaints within the papers.
The following comments followed:
FHAcommented that as a complaint reviewer, she never hears the final outcome of the complaint or if the complaint was escalated further.
Email presentation to LSP panel members after the meeting.
Complaints discussion
Group 1:
Too much going backwards and forwards via email – speak face to face much sooner
Poor record-keeping
Timescales far too long
Following up / visiting to tie things up
Not just expect a letter to be the only way to serve resolution
Be clearer on expectations earlier on rather than trying to be “nice” to appease customer but not following procedure
Group 2:
Length of process
Number of people involved, in and out
Could it have been identified as a complaint earlier?
Liked use of diagram in early responses
Structure of responses from managers were clear but impersonal
Could have been easier to soften intro with face to face meeting
7 / Meeting Closed

Page 1 of 5