Agenda item

To inform the Performance Monitoring Panel of the 2023/24 Tenant Satisfaction Measure Results (report of the Assistant Director – Housing enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Assistant Director – Housing which informed the Performance Monitoring Panel of the 2023/24 Tenant Satisfaction Measure results.

The Housing Transformation Programme Manager and Business Support Manager attended for this item.

The Housing Transformation Programme Manager introduced the report and raised the following points:

• From 2023/24, the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH) required all landlords to complete Tenant Satisfaction Measure surveys on an annual basis;
• The exercise enabled tenants to hold their landlord to account and represented a means by which the RSH understood areas upon which to focus inspections;
• No deviations from the format were permitted, including survey questions;
• The operating environment for the sector included that:
  • Tenants were the least satisfied they had been in the last five years with a decline in satisfaction and a 30% increase in formal complaints;
  • One third of landlords had large volumes of overdue repairs with a 60% increase in completion times. It was noted that SHDC was currently performing well in these areas with voids below target days and repairs completed within set timescales;
• A summary of the approach for the Tenant Satisfaction Measure survey was at Appendix A;
• The Tenant Satisfaction Measure results, which referred to Housemark data, was at Appendix B; and
• A presentation which summarised the report, and included RSH data released since the report was published, was given to members at the meeting and appended to the minutes.

 Members considered the report and made the following comments:

• Members expressed concern regarding the anti-social behaviour (ASB) statistics for the ‘rural’ South Holland when compared to the national picture. Was this a growing problem in the district?
  • The Housing Transformation Programme Manager responded that:
    • The RSH had undertaken work which enabled accurate comparisons for 10,000 units across the country;
    • The statistics related to SHDC’s approach as a landlord rather than the community safety however the two teams worked together with the transfer of cases as applicable;
    • The survey results indicated that not all neighbour disputes were being categorised as ASB cases and it was felt that engagement with tenants regarding ASB required improvements;
    • A similar situation had been identified regarding complaints and a huge effort had been made within the last six months to address the issue which included that:
      • Work had been undertaken to ensure that all informally reported complaints were recorded as formal complaints;
      • A working group met every six weeks to review all complaint cases and to identify trends and learning;
      • Reports were provided regularly to the Portfolio Holder and six-monthly to Cabinet which included an update on trends and performance as well as service improvements undertaken in response to complaints; and
      • A similar focus regarding ASB would take place within the next 12 months.

• Members asked if regular comparisons of SHDC performance against national performance was undertaken and whether such findings could be reported to all members on a monthly basis. Members stated that even where SHDC performed above the national average, the council should aim to attain 100% satisfaction levels.
  • The Housing Transformation Programme Manager confirmed that:
    • The Tenant Satisfaction figures were surveyed annually;
    • The performance figures were recorded and reported to the Portfolio Holder on a monthly basis and reported to members quarterly;
    • Enquiries would be made with the Portfolio Holder regarding monthly reporting to members; and
    • Clarification was made regarding activity timeframes: the Tenant Satisfaction survey (from TP01 onwards) was undertaken on an annual basis whereas the Management Information results on Appendix B (from BS01 onwards) were reported monthly.

• Members noted that the ideal representative survey sample sizes were often cited as being 1100, however the Tenant Satisfaction Measures survey size was less than half of this amount. Members were concerned whether the findings were accurate.
  • The Housing Transformation Programme Manager responded that the sample size was stipulated by the RSH.

• Members referred to Management Information CH02(2) on Appendix B, in respect of ‘stage two complaints responded to within the Housing Ombudsman's Complaint Handling Code timescales’ and queried the entry ‘0.0’. Did this mean there were no stage two complaints or that none had been dealt with? Greater clarity was required to remove any doubt regarding performance.
  • The Housing Transformation Programme Manager confirmed that there had not been any cases and the result had originally stated ‘not applicable’.

• Members noted that the survey had been conducted externally by ARP Research, and queried whether expertise to conduct surveys existed internally.
  • The Housing Transformation Programme Manager responded that:
    • The RSH had issued a grant to ensure that the work was undertaken;
    • It was considered best practice that the survey be conducted independently in order to receive honest feedback; and
    • The utilisation of a third party to conduct the survey also provided assurance to the RSH that the survey had been independently verified.

• Members requested that the ‘Area’ table of Appendix A be explained.
  • The Housing Transformation Programme Manager responded that the district was divided into 8 patches of around 500 properties per patch. A Housing Officer managed a specific patch; and
  • The Business Support Manager added that where a patch had a higher number of properties, the stated weighting had been applied to the collected results to ensure a consistent average applied.
    • Members requested that further clarity be brought to members in respect of the ‘Area’ table.

• Members referred to the ‘Property age’ table of Appendix B, in particular that around three quarters of the properties were built prior to 1965 and which likely required much modernisation. Were all such required improvements identified and undertaken?
  • The Housing Transformation Programme Manager responded that:
    • A stock condition survey across all 3800 council properties was currently underway, and was due to be completed by September 2025;
    • The stock condition survey reviewed all components of the property and details checked against records held by the council; and
    • Informed by the results of the stock condition survey, the HRA Business Plan was being rewritten to include an Asset Management Strategy, and would be presented to members in 2025/26.

• Members referred to the ‘Tenure length’ table and noted that around 40% of tenants had lived in their property for over 10 years. It was felt that incentives were needed so that under occupied properties were made available for larger families.
  • The Housing Transformation Programme Manager responded that:
    • A local authority tenancy offered the best security for residents as a ‘tenancy for life’ and as such, tenants would not actively choose to move into the private rental sector;
    • Some residents purchased their properties through the Right to Buy process;
    • The tenure length did not reflect the time in a single property but rather the time that a tenancy agreement with the council had been in place. This remained unbroken where a resident moved within the council’s housing portfolio; and
    • A Tenant Census undertaken in 2023 advised the council of underoccupancy data to inform proactive work, the first phase of which would be to target residents deemed suitable for the council’s sheltered housing offer. Currently the council did not offer incentives for a resident to move however this was to be reviewed;
• Members stated that the provision of support towards moving costs had previously incentivised residents of under occupied properties to move into sheltered accommodation; and
• Members requested statistics which evidenced how long residents remained in council owned properties.

AGREED:

That both the contents of the report and the results at Appendix B be noted.