Agenda item

Presentation by Ian Richardson and Blake Hutchinson

(Enclosure)

The Chairman welcomed the Head of Housing and Neighbourhoods, Ian Richardson and the Team Leader Resident Involvement, Blake Hutchinson to the meeting.

Mr Richardson gave a presentation to the Group on resident involvement and tenant scrutiny; that is to say, scrutiny of housing services by tenants rather than scrutiny of tenants.  In the past the Audit Commission had carried out a programme of regulatory inspection of social housing providers; however, the new regulatory framework operated by the Homes & Community Agency adopts a lighter touch from the regulator on the understanding that housing providers would better enable their tenants to scrutinize and influence the housing service.

This co-regulatory approach, involving provider, tenants and regulator was enabling a power shift towards local level accountability, transparency and the promotion of awareness and understanding on the part of tenants. The adoption of “local offers”, which would be distinct to South Kesteven, would enable services to be shaped to meet local priorities and provide tenants with clearer reference points for scrutinizing performance and driving service improvements with housing providers proactively seeking feedback. 

Mr Richardson then spoke about how tenant scrutiny was an approach not a process; it was flexible in terms of its context and application and required a reporting structure that was effective and efficient and which enabled capability and capacity to be built amongst tenants.  It was important, said Mr Richardson, that the priorities and views of the tenants should be at the heart of any decision making.  He then spoke about the requirement of the Localism Act for there to be a ‘democratic filter’ for future housing complaints.  Currently there was a corporate review taking place on the complaints procedure to streamline the service and this would need to take account of Housing Services’ requirement for this democratic filter. From 1st April 2013 all housing complaints referred to the ombudsman would go to a single housing ombudsman. All other corporate complaints referred to an ombudsman would continue to be referred to the Local Government Ombudsman but housing complaints would be referred to the Housing Ombudsman only if referred by a ‘designated person’; such a person being either a Member of Parliament for the area, a District Councillor for the district to which the complaint related or a ‘designated’ panel of tenants from the district.  The expectation was that complaints would have exhausted the internal complaints procedure before being referred onwards to the Ombudsman. Implicit in the legislation was an expectation that every effort would be made to resolve complaints locally rather than have them referred to the ombudsman. However, if the democratic filter did not either satisfactorily resolve the complaint or refer it to the Ombudsman within eight weeks, the complainant would retain the right to refer the complaint directly to the ombudsman.

A brief discussion then followed with Members asking about timescales and clarifying how the complaint process would work.  It was felt by those Members present that the democratic filter should in most circumstances be the District Ward Councillor for the area rather than the MP. Mr Richardson explained that the way the arrangement was drafted; the tenant could choose any of the available democratic filters. Currently, SKDC had an appeals panel of Members to consider unresolved complaints and it was felt that this panel would meet the requirement. If the panel ceased to exist, alternative arrangements, consistent with the requirements of the Localism Act, would need to be made. In any event, the Council would need to publish any revisions to its complaints handling procedures.  Further discussion followed about involving the Ward Councillor in the complaint from the beginning and about the need to ensure that any panel of tenants was properly trained and supported. 

Having described the possible role of tenants in both scrutiny of housing services and in providing a ‘democratic filter, Mr Richardson then spoke about what makes scrutiny work and how tenants could feed in to the scrutiny process.  Where tenant scrutiny is effective, it should result in an improved service experience for tenants, leading in turn to higher levels of tenant satisfaction and improved organisational performance and value for money.

Factors critical to making tenant scrutiny work included:

-         A clearly defined remit and real power

-        The Scrutiny Panel to be tenant led and independent

-        Clear roles and responsibilities outlined with capacity to deliver

-        Decisions based on freely available and commissioned information

-        Embedding scrutiny in performance management arrangements

-        Being accessible, encouraging diversity and promoting equality

He then spoke about how the wider body of tenants could feed into the process through tenant surveys, complaints, compliments and comments, estate inspections and walkabouts. More transparency would mean that tenants who were directly affected could have their views taken into account when, for example, the housing service was appointing contractors. Tenants could also be involved in performance monitoring and service reviews.   Challenges to overcome included; ensuring equal engagement amongst tenants and meeting the expectations of those tenants.  To ensure that the panel did not fail in its work, continuity and commitment needed to be built in together with ensuring fairer representation of a broader range of tenants within the panel and ensuring that the panel knew what its remit and boundaries were. 

Co–regulation and tenant scrutiny was something that was here to stay.  An approach was required that would formally incorporate tenants’ views and which was accountable.  Mr Richardson then spoke about the current tenant involvement arrangements, how he proposed the new tenant involvement arrangements might look and how the role of the housing scrutiny panel would fit into this structure.

Progress had already been made with opportunities being published and promoted in Skyline and targeted letters.  Expressions of interest had been made with 46 applications completed and returned.  External trainers had been identified in anticipation of assistance being needed in developing the capability of tenants involved in scrutiny.

Members discussed the response from tenants received to date and what power the scrutiny panel would hold together with timeframes for developing and implementing scrutiny arrangements. Reference was again made to who should provide the democratic filter for complaints and also who could sit on the scrutiny panel. The question of whether Ward Members would be able to sit as observers of the tenant scrutiny panel was raised and Mr Richardson replied that Ward Members would need to be invited by the panel to observe as they did not have a right to attend.  The terms of reference for the panel had yet to be decided, including whether or not scrutiny panel meetings would be open meetings. In response to a question about how the panel would be renewed, Mr Richardson replied that capability and capacity would be built in, in order that the panel could be sustained, it was suggested that the terms of reference together with the support provided to the panel would seek to ensure this was achieved and sustained over a period of years.

The Chairman thanked Mr Richardson and Mr Hutchinson for attending the meeting and their presentation.