Agenda item

To analyse the access to the Housing Landlord Service across key protected characteristics (report of the Assistant Director – Housing enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Assistant Director – Housing which analysed access to the Housing Landlord Services across key protected characteristics.

The Housing Service Insight and Improvement Lead introduced a summary of the report:

The Housing Landlord Service had undertaken an access to services analysis in response to actions arising from the Regulator of Social Housing’s regulatory inspection in 2025. The purpose of the analysis had been to determine whether the Council’s housing services were accessible to all tenants, including those with protected characteristics and those identified as vulnerable. Members were advised that service contact was received through a range of pathways, including telephony, email, text messaging, web forms, focus groups and face?to?face interactions, and that contacts often involved multiple queries across more than one service area. Due to the complexity of information held across different systems, the analysis had been completed using incoming case data recorded within each service area to ensure accuracy and reliable comparison.

Members were informed that data had been examined across ten housing service areas, including responsive repairs, complaints, antisocial behaviour, rent arrears service (incoming contact only), Damp Condensation and mould, independent living, cost?of?living support, sheltered housing, the handyperson service and Right to Buy applications. The analysis, covering the period from 1 April to 31 December 2024, overlaid active tenant information to identify whether any characteristics or vulnerabilities were associated with lower access to services. Initial findings indicated that nationality and ethnicity did not present barriers to contact, although some European ethnic groups appeared marginally less likely to engage, which could be attributed to cultural differences or potential language barriers. Officers advised that the promotion of translation and interpretation services had therefore been identified as a potential service improvement.

It was further reported that age?related access patterns broadly reflected the wider tenant population, with younger tenants being marginally less likely to contact some services. Officers advised that targeted digital and social media communications may support greater engagement among younger tenants. No evidence was found to suggest that gender affected access to services. The analysis also confirmed that tenants with identified communication needs were accessing services at equivalent or higher rates than the general tenant population. In addition, tenants reporting vulnerabilities such as hearing, learning, mobility or behavioural impairments were found to have access rates equal to or exceeding those of the wider tenant population.

On completion of the analysis, officers had identified a number of proposed actions, including continued promotion of translation and interpretation services, targeted digital engagement and review of online tools for accessibility.  The analysis was proposed to be repeated annually to monitor trends and ensure that access remained equitable across all tenant groups.

Members considered the report and made the following comments:

·         Members queried the reporting period, noting that dates appeared to span an eighteen?month timeframe.

o   The Housing Service Insight and Improvement Lead clarified that the data set covered the period from 1 April 2024 to 31 December 2025 and confirmed that this timeframe had been used to compare access rates across the tenant population.

·         Members commented that some service access figures appeared lower than expected and asked whether the officer could expand on the differences highlighted at 2.7.4 in the report.

o   The Housing Service Insight and Improvement Lead advised that whilst some figures appeared low, the underlying data showed that access patterns were largely consistent with the wider tenant population, and explained that repairs service access was lower for certain ethnic groups due to a small sample size and potential language barriers.

·         Members raised concerns regarding lower access to the repairs service by some European ethnic groups and asked whether this presented a more serious issue requiring further analysis.

o   The Housing Service Insight and Improvement Lead confirmed that language barriers had been identified as a contributory factor and that further work would be undertaken to understand the extent to which access differences were cultural or service?related. Translation services had been identified as an area for improvement.

·         Members asked whether there was any link between lower service access for some groups and the earlier findings related to difficulties accessing properties during stock condition surveys.

o   The Head of Housing Investment and Delivery responded that no correlation had been identified between tenant profile and the condition of properties within the accessible sample. However, officers undertook to complete further analysis of those properties they had been unable to gain access to, to determine whether any trends existed.

·         Members questioned whether the findings were representative of the wider housing stock.

o   The Housing Services Insight and Improvement Lead explained that the analysis reflected active tenancies over the eighteen?month period and that tenant demographics fluctuated over time. The repairs service had been excluded from some parts of the analysis due to the volume of records, though overall the access trends were considered reflective of the general tenant base.

·         Members sought clarification on the data presented at page 116 of the agenda, particularly regarding the percentage of tenants who had used the repairs service.

o   The Housing Service Insight and Improvement Lead confirmed that approximately 3,368 tenants had accessed the repairs service during the review period and that the system held over 26,000 repair records. Officers confirmed that void works were excluded and that a breakdown of repair categories could be provided, with heating and leaking taps noted as the most common issues.

·         Members asked whether the data could identify common repair?related pressures, delays or recurring issues.

o   The Housing Service Insight and Improvement Lead confirmed that work was underway to analyse delays, recurring repair types, and any patterns arising from different tenancy types or property types.

·         Members raised concerns about the reported percentage of rent arrears among particular nationality groups and queried whether this indicated higher levels of debt.

o   The Housing Service Insight and Improvement Lead clarified that the data reflected tenant contact relating to rent arrears rather than confirmed arrears and that this included tenants who contacted the service for advice or support, rather than those who were behind in payments.

·         Members sought clarification on whether tenants who made contact but were redirected due to language barriers would still be counted in the dataset.

o   The Housing Service Insight and Improvement Lead explained that only cases with a recorded works order or auditable case reference were included. Some tenant contact was therefore not captured within the dataset due to the lack of a formal record, which partly explained why some figures appeared lower.

·         Members acknowledged the manual nature of the analysis and thanked officers for the extensive work involved.

o   The Housing Service Insight and Improvement Lead noted that future analyses should be less intensive as the structure of the reporting model had now been established and would allow for greater automation in subsequent years.

AGREED:

That the contents of the report (including the action plan) and insights be noted, and that the comments raised be considered by Cabinet.